From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jlarmour@redhat.com (Jonathan Larmour) To: per@bothner.com Cc: Joe Buck , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Compiler for Red Hat Linux 8 Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 14:05:00 -0000 Message-id: <200107192104.f6JL4Zd12866@localhost.localdomain> References: <200107190518.WAA11927@racerx.synopsys.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-07/msg01381.html In article < m21yndbhm8.fsf@kelso.bothner.com > you write: >Joe Buck writes: > >> Per Bothner wrote: >> > If A gives B a GPL'd compiler under the proviso of a NDA prohibiting >> > A from distributing the compiler to third parties that is a very >> > different matter. I don't think that in itself violate the GPL. >> >> Nope, read it again. The GPL requires that all recipients be given a >> license to redistribute. > >But A is not the recipient - A is the one providing the compile to B. >B is of course free to redistribute the compiler. But we are talking >about the case where the NDA binds *A*, not B. Think A==RedHat; >B==Intel; RedHat signs NDA and develops compiler port; Intel receives >compiler from GCC. RedHat is bound by the NDA; Intel is free to >r-distribute GCC under GPL, and is not bound by the NDA; viola no >conflict. > >Now if Intel then distributes GCC to a third party under an NDA, >*then* there is a confloct. I believe the relevant clauses are indeed, from 6: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." So if you redistribute, you can't insist they sign an NDA. Of course what will happen is that the distributor (A) *won't* distribute it to B if B has not signed an NDA. A is not _obliged_ to redistribute to B.[1] Then as far as B is concerned, clause 7 applies, namely: "If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all." which prevents any further conflict. So what you can't do is for A to redistribute to B and add an additional license with the redistribution saying "you can't give this to anyone else". That's not the same as only choosing to redistribute it to people who have already signed an agreement separately. Jifl - who isn't a lawyer, but gets interested in this type of stuff ;) [1] But only if clause 3a applies. If 3b applies, A can be obliged to redistribute to any third party. -- Red Hat, Rustat House, Clifton Road, Cambridge, UK. Tel: +44 (1223) 271062 Maybe this world is another planet's Hell -Aldous Huxley || Opinions==mine Come to the Red Hat TechWorld open source conference in Brussels! Keynotes, techie talks and exhibitions http://www.redhat-techworld.com/