There is a false statement that must be corrected, about NDA's.
Matthias Fischmann wrote:
On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 10:46:16AM +0100, Chris Kuklewicz wrote:
[...]
The GPL only gets in the way if you put it there by choosing to derive work
from GPL code. Note that most commercial programs do not allow you the
choice of deriving your work from theirs at all. The GPL adds to your
free-as-in-freedom: you can derive work from others' GPL work and you can
GPL also brings about restrictions to freedom-in-speech that are
rarely mentioned: Say you develop the code for a client to run her
production facilities. This code contains sensitive information about
the way the facilities work and must not fall into the hands of the
client's competitors. But if GPL is stuck to any part of the code and
manages to infect the rest, the client can make you sign as many NDAs
as there can be.
The GPL is not a disease that "infect"s. That is a metaphor made by people who
hate such licenses. The GPL does not blow in the window or from someone's
sneeze and get "stuck" to code. To introduce GPL derived code is a choice made
be the programmer. You can always choose not to derive from GPL code, and you
can always change your mind later and rewrite the derived code so you can remove
it. Talking about biological metaphors is deliberately misleading.
...the client can make you sign as many NDAs
as there can be.
The GPL still entitles you to sell it. I'm sure
there are other scenarios in which the restritions that GPL places on
the developer are equally prohibitive.
No. You are wrong. Google for GPL and NDA gives
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html :
Does the GPL allow me to distribute a modified or beta version under a
nondisclosure agreement?
No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy of your version
from you has the right to redistribute copies (modified or not) of
that version. It does not give you permission to distribute the
work on any more restrictive basis.
Does the GPL allow me to develop a modified version under a
nondisclosure agreement?
Yes. For instance, you can accept a contract to develop changes
and agree not to release your changes until the client says
ok. This is permitted because in this case no GPL-covered code is
being distributed under an NDA.
You can also release your changes to the client under the GPL, but
agree not to release them to anyone else unless the client says
ok. In this case, too, no GPL-covered code is being distributed
under an NDA, or under any additional restrictions.
The GPL would give the client the right to redistribute your
version. In this scenario, the client will probably choose not to
exercise that right, but does have the right.
As the developer you can sign an NDA and it will bind you. But it will not bind
the client.
GPL/LGPL is interesting, LGPL v3 may turn into something cool or not.
(I heard they have problems sorting out the above scenario, too, or
something more tricky, I forgot.) But placing restrictions on how the
code may be used has lead to surprising problems. BSD on the other
hand is a safe bet.
Note that there are many people who will not do work on a BSD project since a
company can just come along and take it. People are free to choose GPL or BSD
for their work and then other people are free to choose whether to derive work
from them. But if there was no GPL and the only choice was BSD then much of the
current GPL'd work would not exist.
--
Chris
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
