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: hawk@eyry.econ.iastate.edu (Richard E. Hawkins Esq.) Subject: Re: GPL and "free" software Date: 1999/05/05 Message-ID: <7gpqms$7qj$1@eyry.econ>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 474371239 References: <7fibd5$jc7$1@news2.tor.accglobal.net> <3727B37D.A4A5192E@noah.dhs.org> <7g9rh5$h5a$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7gaiof$sjj$1@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu> Organization: House of Hawkins Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss Date: 1999-05-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <7gaiof$sjj$1@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Lynn Winebarger wrote: >In article <7g9rh5$h5a$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, >Robert Dewar 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). ... >>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) However, under this chip development scenario, the licensee of the GPL is the conglomerate/joint enterprise/whatever of A, B, and I, complete with their NDA's, which can internally distribute it's modified version. There is no subversion here; it's simply a question of "who is the licensee." -- These opinions will not be those of ISU until it pays my retainer.