> In this case, it seems that I and the FSF disagree. Prohibiting > staff from distributing free software is the same as a NDA, in my > opinion.
No, it is circumscribing what they can do as agents of the company, with the property of the company. One very important issue is limiting liability. Whereas there would be few issues with distributing copies of unmodified free software, any modifications commissioned by the company could engage its liability. Shake, doesn't make any sense. It is an NDA, I'm not allowed to give you a program since I'm under this NDA. I also fail to see how one could be liable for anything. > And I think it is a weird stance from the FSF to support such > practises. There happens to be solid realism in most of the FSF stances. Indeed, I happen to agree on many (if not most) of the stances of the FSF, but this one is one of the few I personally strongly disagree with. It is an excuse for making non-free software. Infact, it is the exact situation that RMS was once found in when asking for a program and someone had signed an agreement not to give people the code. All this makes this stance from the FSF really weird... I'm fine if you simply don't want to give it, but not being allowed to give it is something completely different. _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss