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: 1999/05/05
Message-ID: <7gpvsh$tdm$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 474379460
References: <7fibd5$jc7$1@news2.tor.accglobal.net>
 <3727B37D.A4A5192E@noah.dhs.org> <7g9rh5$h5a$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <7gaiof$sjj$1@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu> <7gpqms$7qj$1@eyry.econ>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x16.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.4
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed May 05 17:41:37 1999 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.01SC-SGI (X11; I; IRIX 5.3 IP22)
Date: 1999-05-05T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <7gpqms$7qj$1@eyry.econ>,
  hawk@eyry.econ.iastate.edu (Richard E. Hawkins Esq.) wrote:

> 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.


That does not work, unless there is a legal entity involved, not at all
clear that this could be set up. A license needs a legal entity, either
an individual, or a corporate entity. A collection of companies is not
an entity in this regard. It would be possible to establish an entity
for this purpose, but it would not be able to distribute to the other
entities involved.

It is quite intentional that the GPL makes this kind of cooperation without
open disclosure difficult!

Of course ultimately a court has to decide what is and what is not valid,
but certainly in the case of GCC, the copyright holder, Richard Stallman,
would probably object to any such dubious setup, as best I understand his
position.

RObert Dewar

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