Re: Compiler for Red Hat Linux 8

[Justin Guyett <jfg at sonicity dot com>]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Michael Eager wrote:

> Unless I'm reading the GPL incorrectly, this does not violate the GPL.
>
> GPL does not require that code which depends on NDA info to be made public.
> It says that if you produce a product using GPL code, that the source must be
> made available to the recipient of the product and that the derived product
> must be licensed under the GPL.  It does not mandate that you publicly
> distribute the product nor does it prohibit your distribution of the product
> selectively.

That's not my impression...

Yes, you can close the source and keep it in-house, and you can distribute
it to only 1 other person if that's what you want to do.  However, the GPL
_forces_ you to give GPL rights to anyone you distribute software to,
which conflicts with every NDA I've ever seen.  That one person you give
it to then must be allowed to distribute it, modified or not, to anyone
[s]he wants.  Otherwise it's not GPL'd, and thus you cannot give it to
them.

The GPL doesn't only protect the right of people to get source code to
modified versions they received, but also protects the right of those
people to distribute their copies, modified or not.  Otherwise anyone can
tack on a "you must get permission from us before you redistribute" which
is obviously not allowed.

If redhat is allowed to do this to gcc, microsoft can do the same thing,
wrap it in an "NDA" license, and even if you get the program and request
source (which they then must provide), you can't make changes or
distribute it to others.  Seems like a NDA is clearly incompatible with
the GPL.


justin