From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Rosenberg To: Per Bothner , Joe Buck Cc: , , Subject: Re: Compiler for Red Hat Linux 8 Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 23:00:00 -0000 Message-id: References: X-SW-Source: 2001-07/msg01331.html on 7/18/01 10:41 PM, Per Bothner at per@bothner.com wrote: > 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. It sounds like you've just described a common situation. Notably, this sounds like the Playtation 2 situation. +------------------------------------------------------------+ | Alexander M. Rosenberg < mailto:alexr@_spies.com > | | Nobody cares what I say. Remove the underscore to mail me. |