On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 01:05:28AM -0800, Ian Romanick wrote: > > The problem is that none of the NDAs I have seen (which is not that > many) explicitly give you the rights to release source code based on > documentation on NDA. If you happen to work for a company that is > extremely cautious about such legal issues, that means you don't get to > sign any NDAs. > > Personally (i.e., not speaking for my employer in any way) agree that > it's reasonable for hardware vendors to release documentation under NDA. > However, if they're releasing NDA documentation to developers for the > purpose of creating open-source drivers, the NDA should explicitly give > the developers that right.
I agree. To illuminate that point, a friend of mine applied for a NDA with Xerox to develop a Ghostscript filter for some of their inkjet printers. Upon receiving the NDA document, he realized that it specifically barred him from releasing any source code that he would develop based on their documentation. Xerox would not negotiate, so he gave up on it and bought a new printer from a different company. It is possible that NDAs that do not explicitly outline terms under which you can release source code could be even more dangerous than NDAs that come right out and say "you can't publish source". The latter stops you from going any further right at the beginning, but the former could waste a lot of time and money and ruin your day if the company got the wrong attitude down the road. -- Ryan Underwood, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
