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: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com>
Subject: Re: GPL and "free" software
Date: 1999/04/29
Message-ID: <7gacb2$17l$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 472393990
References: <7fibd5$jc7$1@news2.tor.accglobal.net>
 <1rlV2.97$jw4.11389@burlma1-snr2> <7g5cb2$bjn$1@netnews.upenn.edu>
 <37264DE6.7AA43E60@noah.dhs.org> <7g5qgg$n7t@www.inetnow.net>
 <372753FF.11F381CF@noah.dhs.org> <7g7ul9$tib$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <3727B37D.A4A5192E@noah.dhs.org> <7g9rh5$h5a$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <37287742.F8EE7E23@aasaa.ofe.org>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x1.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Apr 29 19:36:02 1999 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 1999-04-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <37287742.F8EE7E23@aasaa.ofe.org>,
  David Starner <dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org> wrote:
> Robert Dewar wrote:
> > They cannot exchange derived versions of gcc, since
> > these would have to be distributed under the GPL
> >*without*
> > any additional restrictions (like non-disclosure
> > agreements).
>
> In practice, does it really matter? Just agree not to
> release it, and
> don't worry about non-disclosure agreements. It's not
> quite as paranoid,
> but it should still work.

In practice this will work fine, but unfortunately lawyers
for certain large companies are unlikely to be happy at
this kind of informal protection of their trade secrets.
Remember that you protect trade secrets for two reasons.

1. To keep things secret

2. To be seen to be taking due diligence in keeping things
secret, so that legally the trade secrets retain their
status as secrets.

I am afraid that the informal passing of GPL'ed material
that you suggest, while it may meet criterion 1, may fail
to meet criterion 2.

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own