From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
To: dewar@gnat.com, rth@cygnus.com
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu, law@redhat.com, mrs@windriver.com
Subject: Re: Why not gnat Ada in gcc?
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 04:40:00 -0000
Message-id: <20001102124018.073F334D8A@nile.gnat.com>
X-SW-Source: 2000-11/msg00128.html

<<The GPL says "if you distribute copies ... you must give recipients
all the rights that you have".  Clearly then, if you do not distribute
copies then you need not give out the source either.  Similarly, if you
being under NDA only distribute copies to other parties also under NDA,
the GPL does not release them from their other obligations, which do
in fact prevent them from distributing source _or_ binaries beyond any
who have not signed the proper paperwork.

That's not to say that I enjoy NDAs, but I also do not see them at odds
with the GPL either in spirit or in letter.
>>

Well I must say it is quite interesting to have a direct statrement
from cygnus.com that is it perfectly fine to distribute GPL'ed code
under the restriction of an NDA. I see things very differently, and
indeed distributing GPL'ed code under an NDA seems quite clearly to
violate para 6:

  6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions.  You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.

An NDA sure sounds like a "further restriction" to me!