This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Why not gnat Ada in gcc?
- To: Robert Dewar <dewar at gnat dot com>
- Subject: Re: Why not gnat Ada in gcc?
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 01:09:45 -0800
- Cc: law at redhat dot com, mrs at windriver dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu
- References: <20001102042831.817C934DB1@nile.gnat.com>
On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 11:28:31PM -0500, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Well the point is that NDA's and the GPL definitely do not mix well!
> I don't think anyone could argue otherwise.
Nonsense.
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.
r~