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: owinebar@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Lynn Winebarger)
Subject: Re: GPL and "free" software
Date: 1999/04/29
Message-ID: <7gaiof$sjj$1@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 472449468
References: <7fibd5$jc7$1@news2.tor.accglobal.net>
 <7g7ul9$tib$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3727B37D.A4A5192E@noah.dhs.org>
 <7g9rh5$h5a$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss
Date: 1999-04-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <7g9rh5$h5a$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
Robert Dewar  <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>Suppose two companies want to work together on a super
>secret GCC implementation for a super secret chip (I will
>leave the imaginative reader to fill in appropriate
>details).
>
>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).
>
>But if patches were not covered, they could distribute
>patches.
>
>It was specifically in this context that I discussed the
>issue with Richard Stallman, and his view is that this
>attempt to subvert the intention of the GPL is not in
>accordance with the license.
>
   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)

   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).
 

   I am a full supporter of the GPL, but I also love these little logic
games.  

Lynn