Re: GPL and "free" software

[hawk@eyry.econ.iastate.edu (Richard E. Hawkins Esq.)]

In article <7gpvsh$tdm$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
Robert Dewar  <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>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."

>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.

To start with, such an operation would be a partnership, unless a
contract or other action gave it another status (venture, corporation,
etc.).  It certainly is a legal entity.  

Additionally, it is not the collection of companies, but the development
effort; at first impression (which is as far as I'm going :), it doesn't
appear that this entity would be able to distribute to the to the
companies that formed it (though thoughtful planning might make it so,
but i don't have time to work with it [and noon'es paid my 
retainer :) ]).

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

It only makes it difficult without a minimally competent lawyer. 
However, it would prevent external distribution of binaries.


>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.

I won't grant you that it's dubious; these are rather simple legal
principles at work. 

However, all happens is that there is an internal version of GCC,
which could be useful during development, but could never be released
in binary only form to the customers who buy the chip.

Also, RMS's opinion on what is valid weighs in at about five billion
and one--after every one else on the planet. In interpreting
a document, the opinion of the author is the *very* last thing 
to consider.  For that matter, general contract principles call 
for interpreting any ambiguity *against* the author.

rick, esq.

-- 
These opinions will not be those of ISU until it pays my retainer.