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: 1999/04/30 Message-ID: <7gasnk$t8b$1@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 472501308 References: <7fibd5$jc7$1@news2.tor.accglobal.net> <7g9rh5$h5a$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7gaiof$sjj$1@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu> <3728F132.116D44D1@noah.dhs.org> Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss Date: 1999-04-30T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <3728F132.116D44D1@noah.dhs.org>, Joshua E. Rodd wrote: >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. > Oh, yeah. I'm assuming the only worry was about breaking the NDA, not about the modification being freely distributed. I'm obviously referring to situation like the one where Intel provides the docs on their new chips to Linux developers, who share code amongst each other and will be released as free eventually anyway. I wasn't referring to one were "I" was some sort of shadow company made for the devious purpose of restraining free code. That would be different. Of course, A is still bound by its contract with "I." Unless there's some legal way to show it was only a devious scheme and really equivalent to B's being the source of the NDA, rather than their being independent entities. I haven't taken the time to do any reading on that subject though. Lynn