6 Apr
2005
6 Apr
'05
11:25 a.m.
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 22:09 , Erik de Castro Lopo <erikd-lad(a)mega-nerd.com> sent:
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 00:31:15 -0500
Shane lists(a)itsagesolutions.com> wrote:
If you are part of the company or a contractor to the company and the product
is not distributed outside the company you can do whatever you want with the code
without having to release it. If you are outside the company and have to sign an
NDA then I think that would be considered distribution and would therefore
violate the GPL. As Erik said, once it's distributed then it has to be released.
Jan
Hey everyone. I have a bland but important
question for everyone. Say
hypothetically a company is developing an audio product using lots of
GPL source, but for whatever marketing reasons asks for NDA concerning
the codebase. Lots of GPL work is referenced and at least dynamically
linked, and though the company has directly stated that it will release
the codebase publicly with the product release (once it is complete).
I am curious as to the general feel in the community on such practices.
Would this 1) be a violation of the GPL,
Yes.
2) if it is how tolerant would
the OSS community be, considering the general good intent of the
project, and
If any of my code is involved, I will prusue the matter.
3) if I were asked to sign such a NDA would that
document
be a binding agreement even if the NDA itself might be a violation of
the GPL since it is inherently counterintuitive to the intent of the
GPL.
The GPL is pretty clear about this. The GPL comes into action when
the binaries or code derived from GPL code is **distributed**.
That means that you and the company can hack on whatever GPL code
you like as long as they don't release a binary (under NDA or not).