RE: GPL and NDA

RE: GPL and NDA

[Bernard Dautrevaux]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Stallman [ mailto:rms@gnu.org ]
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 1:07 PM
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: GPL and NDA
> 
> 
> GPL-covered code may not be distributed under an NDA.
> To do so is a violation of the GPL.
> 
> If someone asks you to sign an NDA for receiving GPL-covered code that
> is copyright FSF, please inform the FSF immediately.  If it involves
> GPL-covered code that has some other copyright holder, please inform
> that copyright holder, just as you would for any other kind of
> violation of the GPL.
> 
> It is possible for a person or company to develop changes to a
> GPL-covered program and sign an NDA promising not to release these
> changes *to anyone*.  This is a different case.  As long as these
> changes are not distributed at all, a fortiori they are not
> distributed in a way that violates the GPL.
> 
> However, if and when the changes are distributed to another person or
> outside the company, they must be distributed under the terms of the
> GPL, not under an NDA.

Is this true even if the code is distributed to the people with wich the NDA
was originally signed? I mean the following scenario:

    Company A provides, under an NDA, information to company B.

    Using this information, B develop, based on some GPLed code, 
    a program for A.

    B then distribute this program (which IS GPLed) to A, but is 
    prohibited to distribute it to anybody else (due to the NDA).

Is this a violation of the GPL or is it possible, provided that B distribute
the program to A with the normal GPL provision of the access to the source
code?

Of course if A decide to redistribute the program in any form, then this
must be done witout requiring an NDA to conform with the GPL. My question is
about the initial "distribution" of the NDA-covered code by B to A.

TIA

	Bernard

--------------------------------------------
Bernard Dautrevaux
Microprocess Ingenierie
97 bis, rue de Colombes
92400 COURBEVOIE
FRANCE
Tel:	+33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
Fax:	+33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
e-mail:	dautrevaux@microprocess.com
		b.dautrevaux@usa.net
-------------------------------------------- 

Re: GPL and NDA

[Carlo Wood]

On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 08:02:23AM +0200, Bernard Dautrevaux wrote:
>     Company A provides, under an NDA, information to company B.
> 
>     Using this information, B develop, based on some GPLed code, 
>     a program for A.
> 
>     B then distribute this program (which IS GPLed) to A, but is 
>     prohibited to distribute it to anybody else (due to the NDA).
> 
> Is this a violation of the GPL or is it possible, provided that B distribute
> the program to A with the normal GPL provision of the access to the source
> code?
> 
> Of course if A decide to redistribute the program in any form, then this
> must be done witout requiring an NDA to conform with the GPL. My question is
> about the initial "distribution" of the NDA-covered code by B to A.

Imho, it works as follows:

anything + GPL can not be distributed unless it is first GPL-ed.
If 'anything' disallows changing the license, then it can not be
distributed period.  However, if the NDA allows B to perform the
following atomic operation: distibute it back to A and GPL it at
the same time, then there is no incompatibility with the GPL.
However, and that is certainly an interesting legal question,
can something like that be atomic?  If you first GPL it and THEN
distribute it to A, then there CAN NOT be a restriction to also
distribute it to C.  While when you first distribute it to A and
then GPL it, you violated the GPL.  And even when the operation
can be atomic, A can not distribute it anymore of course - if he
does that then the orginal authors of the GPL-ed code as well as
B can legally request a copy - which would be GPL-ed.
Imho, this is only possible when the transfer from B back to A
is not considered a distribution as per GPL.

-- 
Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>

Re: GPL and NDA Q:what defines an "organization"

[Robert E. Hartley]

Hi,

(sorry for being so OT.  Flames pointing me at the proper place will be gladly
accepted)

I have never considered this stuff before, but recent postings make my brain
itch with some questions:

Is it true that GPL'ed code can be used within an organization with the source
undisclosed, as long as it never leaves that organization in arny form?

If so, what defines an "organization"

Does this infer that a mean spirited group could setup their own "Organization
of Nasty People Who Do Not Like the GPL", and operating in bad faith, use
GPL code amongst themselves and forbid ever sharing the source with outsiders?

Could they then have a click through pseudo license thing that once agreeing to
it, users become automatic members of this group?

Do we have to worry about the possible rise of www.gng.org (GNG's Not GNU) ?

Does this mean that the GPL will cause the source to be forever closed, in
effect, being used against itself?

What happens when software starts getting afflicted with the so called
"GNG virus?"

Sorry to be so obtuse,

-rh


Bernard Dautrevaux wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richard Stallman [ mailto:rms@gnu.org ]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 1:07 PM
> > To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> > Subject: GPL and NDA
> >
> >
> > GPL-covered code may not be distributed under an NDA.
> > To do so is a violation of the GPL.
> >
> > If someone asks you to sign an NDA for receiving GPL-covered code that
> > is copyright FSF, please inform the FSF immediately.  If it involves
> > GPL-covered code that has some other copyright holder, please inform
> > that copyright holder, just as you would for any other kind of
> > violation of the GPL.
> >
> > It is possible for a person or company to develop changes to a
> > GPL-covered program and sign an NDA promising not to release these
> > changes *to anyone*.  This is a different case.  As long as these
> > changes are not distributed at all, a fortiori they are not
> > distributed in a way that violates the GPL.
> >
> > However, if and when the changes are distributed to another person or
> > outside the company, they must be distributed under the terms of the
> > GPL, not under an NDA.
>
> Is this true even if the code is distributed to the people with wich the NDA
> was originally signed? I mean the following scenario:
>
>     Company A provides, under an NDA, information to company B.
>
>     Using this information, B develop, based on some GPLed code,
>     a program for A.
>
>     B then distribute this program (which IS GPLed) to A, but is
>     prohibited to distribute it to anybody else (due to the NDA).
>
> Is this a violation of the GPL or is it possible, provided that B distribute
> the program to A with the normal GPL provision of the access to the source
> code?
>
> Of course if A decide to redistribute the program in any form, then this
> must be done witout requiring an NDA to conform with the GPL. My question is
> about the initial "distribution" of the NDA-covered code by B to A.
>
> TIA
>
>         Bernard
>
> --------------------------------------------
> Bernard Dautrevaux
> Microprocess Ingenierie
> 97 bis, rue de Colombes
> 92400 COURBEVOIE
> FRANCE
> Tel:    +33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
> Fax:    +33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
> e-mail: dautrevaux@microprocess.com
>                 b.dautrevaux@usa.net
> --------------------------------------------

Re: GPL and NDA Q:what defines an "organization"

[DJ Delorie]

> (sorry for being so OT.  Flames pointing me at the proper place will
> be gladly accepted)

gnu.misc.discuss is usually the right place for this kind of topic.

> Is it true that GPL'ed code can be used within an organization with
> the source undisclosed, as long as it never leaves that organization
> in arny form?

Yes.  The GPL only covers redistribution.

> If so, what defines an "organization"

Since the GPL is a legal document, legal definitions.  Usually, a
corporation or legally chartered organization.  For example, employees
of a company using GPL'd software on behalf of the company is not a
redistribution, it's a service contract - the equipment and software
are owned by the company, and the employee is "merely" performing some
tasks for the company.  The company did not "give" the software to the
individual.

This is no different from any other company-owned software a company
may have an employee use.

> Does this infer that a mean spirited group could setup their own
> "Organization of Nasty People Who Do Not Like the GPL", and
> operating in bad faith, use GPL code amongst themselves and forbid
> ever sharing the source with outsiders?

If it was a legally chartered organization, and the software was owned
by (well, possessed by) and used on behalf of the organization,
probably.  However, there's no point in making code GPL if you don't
intend to redistribute it.  Just make the changes proprietary, and
then the GPL itself would stop you from redistributing it.

> Could they then have a click through pseudo license thing that once
> agreeing to it, users become automatic members of this group?

That depends on the legality of the membership restrictions and the
use of the software, not the GPL.  The answer would be the same for an
MS Office site license.

Re: GPL and NDA

[Joern Rennecke]

> 
> Imho, it works as follows:
> 
> anything + GPL can not be distributed unless it is first GPL-ed.

You are confused here.  GPL is not a property of the software, but
a license you grant to the entity that you give the software to.

So to satisfy the terms of the GPL, is is sufficient for B to grant
a GPL license for the modified code to A when it delivers its work.

Re: GPL and NDA

[Richard Stallman]

    Is this true even if the code is distributed to the people with wich the NDA
    was originally signed? I mean the following scenario:

	Company A provides, under an NDA, information to company B.

	Using this information, B develop, based on some GPLed code, 
	a program for A.

	B then distribute this program (which IS GPLed) to A, but is 
	prohibited to distribute it to anybody else (due to the NDA).

This is permitted, because no GPL-covered code is ever distributed
under an NDA in this scenario.  The code developed by B is distributed
only to A, and A is not placed under any NDA obligations.

I have put this in the GPL FAQ.

Re: GPL and NDA

[Chris Sloan]

You say that it can work if you can atomically GPL and distribute it
but that doesn't make any sense to me.  By creating a dervied work
from a GPL work, the new work is GPL'd from the time of its creation.
You can't (AIUI) un-GPL it distribute it and then re-GPL it and expect
that everything is ok.  If for some reason the NDA + the GPL prevent
the distribution when both in force, then it can't be distributed
because you can't avoid the GPL in the situation described.

	Chris


On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 03:36:15PM +0200, Carlo Wood wrote:
> Imho, it works as follows:
> 
> anything + GPL can not be distributed unless it is first GPL-ed.
> If 'anything' disallows changing the license, then it can not be
> distributed period.  However, if the NDA allows B to perform the
> following atomic operation: distibute it back to A and GPL it at
> the same time, then there is no incompatibility with the GPL.
> However, and that is certainly an interesting legal question,
> can something like that be atomic?  If you first GPL it and THEN
> distribute it to A, then there CAN NOT be a restriction to also
> distribute it to C.  While when you first distribute it to A and
> then GPL it, you violated the GPL.  And even when the operation
> can be atomic, A can not distribute it anymore of course - if he
> does that then the orginal authors of the GPL-ed code as well as
> B can legally request a copy - which would be GPL-ed.
> Imho, this is only possible when the transfer from B back to A
> is not considered a distribution as per GPL.
> 
> -- 
> Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>
> 

Re: GPL and NDA Q:what defines an "organization"

[dewar]

<<Does this infer that a mean spirited group could setup their own "Organization
of Nasty People Who Do Not Like the GPL", and operating in bad faith, use
GPL code amongst themselves and forbid ever sharing the source with outsiders?
>>

The GPL is a legal document, and the notion of an individual is well defined
in the law (in contexts like this it includes corporations for example). So
no, you can't set up a group, declare it to be an "organization", and have
it treated as an entity by the law.

Re: GPL and NDA Q:what defines an "organization"

[mike stump]

> Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 11:16:53 -0400
> From: "Robert E. Hartley" <rhartley@ics.com>
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org

> Is it true that GPL'ed code can be used within an organization with the source
> undisclosed, as long as it never leaves that organization in arny form?

While from time to time, we entertain questions and answers about the
GPL and licensing issues, when they threaten to get too involved (as
in full blown discussions), it is usually better to push them back to
gnu.misc.discuss, the proper home of such things.

Thanks.