News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on One more small step toward the right to software repair. Parent comment

Re:One more small step toward the right to software repair by pabs3 on Sunday January 30, 2022 @05:51AM (#30135759)
When the people you are hiring are an external contractor, that probably counts as distribution though.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:One more small step toward the right to software repair by 7steps2much on Sunday January 30, 2022 @06:03AM (#30135845)
It only counts as distribution if you give it to them and they start using the software as well.

If you send them the software, they reverse engineer it and fix bugs that's not distribution.

If you send it to them, they fix bugs and then start using it themselves that is distribution.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:One more small step toward the right to software repair by noduerme on Sunday January 30, 2022 @05:57AM (#30135794)
No, I don't think so. If the company has the right to edit the code, then it can contract that out. If someone paid the company to clone or use the code, that would be distribution.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:One more small step toward the right to software repair by pabs3 on Sunday January 30, 2022 @06:02AM (#30135839)
From the FSF's GPL FAQ:

However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistributi...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:One more small step toward the right to software repair by noduerme on Sunday January 30, 2022 @06:28AM (#30136061)
For use off-site. Hiring a programmer off-site to maintain it isn't "use". Giving it to someone to use in a productive way in furtherance of your business or in exchange for money would be "use".
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:One more small step toward the right to software repair by Jiro on Sunday January 30, 2022 @11:18AM (#30138447)
Distribution matters because it triggers legal consequences--you need a license to distribute. The FSF can't rewrite the law. So they can't say "doing X is distribution" and then claim that doing X requires a license.

So whether the FSF calls something distribution in their own FAQ is irrelevant, unless the FSF is your lawyer and giving you legal advice.

[ Parent | on HN ]