On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 11:24:14AM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> Richard Stallman wrote:
> > Because the company I worked for does not allow my work to be distributed
> > outside of the company, and that conflicts with the GPL.
> > This is a complete misunderstanding of the GPL. It does not require
> > anyone to release modified versions at all.
> The GPL requires the freedom to be *allowed* to distribute the software
> to anyone. The company rules forbid the distribution of the changes to
> parties outside of the company. These two rules conflict. This causes
> confusion, at least, which results in people not being allowed to add
> "secrets" to GPL'ed software.
You are not allowed to add "secrets" to GPL'ed software if you
distribute binaries compiled from that software, because the license
requires you to make the source code available to anyone that you've
distributed binaries to. If you are not distributing binaries, you are
not obligated to distribute the source either. It seems to me that the
term "distribute" has been used in a confusing manner in this
discussion. Again, the GPL only places limits on how you distribute
derived works *IF* you distribute derived works (either binary or
source); if you are distributing *nothing* derived from GPL-licensed
code, then you can keep whatever secrets that you want.
> Perhaps your lawyers can say what happens in case of such a conflict.
> For example, suppose that a person in a company sends a copy of a GPL'ed
> program with "secret" changes to a person outside of the company. The
> sender claims that he is allowed to do that, because the software is
> GPL'ed. The company claims he has broken company rules to keep that
> code secret. Who is right?
IANAL, but I am quite certain you could never coerce a third party to
release source code under the GPL by improperly releasing binaries
created from a combination of GPL code and code belonging to that third
party. If anything, it seems to me that an employee who released
binaries derived from proprietary code would be subject to prosecution
under computer crime laws for theft of data.
The first part of section 7 of the GPL reads:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent
license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Again, IANAL, but I believe this is also applicable to the case of an
employee who releases binaries that are covered by the GPL in opposition
to a company policy. "If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy
simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other
pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the
Program at all." I think the terms of employment would certainly
qualify as a legally binding "other pertinent obligation".
> So long as this isn't 100% clear, the result is that people won't add
> "secrets" to GPL'ed code to avoid this situation.
For my part, I believe the wording is perfectly clear. But a company
who needs to hear this answer from a lawyer would no doubt want to
retain a lawyer on their own behalf to answer the question.
Cheers,
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpOEwor8F3_v.pgp
Description: PGP signature