From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,43ae7f61992b3213 X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,faf964ea4531e6af X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Joshua E. Rodd" Subject: Re: GPL and "free" software Date: 1999/04/29 Message-ID: <3728F132.116D44D1@noah.dhs.org>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 472482890 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <7fibd5$jc7$1@news2.tor.accglobal.net> <7g7ul9$tib$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3727B37D.A4A5192E@noah.dhs.org> <7g9rh5$h5a$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7gaiof$sjj$1@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu> X-Accept-Language: en Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: abuse@neo.rr.com X-Trace: dustdevil.neo.rr.com 925430066 24.93.213.213 (Thu, 29 Apr 1999 19:54:26 EDT) Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online -- Northeast Ohio MIME-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 19:54:26 EDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss Date: 1999-04-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Lynn Winebarger wrote: > I think this depends. If the two above companies are A and B, and a > third company - let's call it I, just to be different - develops a > supersecret chip, then company I might put A and B under identical NDA's > about the chip, that has a clause stating that information derived fromt > the documents may only be shared with other companies under an identical > NDA. Then, in fact, A and B can both share their code and satisfy both > the NDA and the GPL - nothing in the GPL requires that you make your > modifications public, only that you make them available to people you > distribute the software to. (this assumes "I" isn't the one that gives > them the GPL'ed source code to start with) Ah, but let's say that the relationship between A and B soured. A decides that B has done it a great wrong, and decides that the damage inflicted to B outweighs the damage inflicted to themself by letting the code out (it might even benefit A). B would be hard-pressed to take A to court and hold them to their NDA about the modifications given the licence under which the original sources came. > On the other hand, if it was A that was developing the chip and it > put B under NDA, it could not give B the source code changes without > either violating the GPL or partially nullifying the NDA (with regards > to any information in the modified source code). Right--it would take cooperation (which isn't neccessarily a bad thing). But A could *not* restrict B's rights to make mods to GPL'd code freed. > I am a full supporter of the GPL, but I also love these little logic > games. It's fun, isn't it?