[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Dissident versus ASP



On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 01:25:25AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> I'm thinking of a license that extends the proposed DMCA-subversion
> clauses, in such a way that everyone who has access to the source also
> has permission to copy it.  Then, if you add something similar to
> GPL's clause 6 ("You may not impose any further restrictions..."),
> you get the effect that a network service that uses this software
> can only keep its modifications secret if all the developers involved
> agree to keep them secret.  This will work for single developers
> and small groups, as well as for highly motivated groups (such as
> dissidents who risk their lives if the modifications are published),
> but rapidly becomes unstable for large groups and corporations.

Huh? It seems meaningless to me: if you employ some people to work on
your program, you put them under NDA so that they agree not to disclose
the source code; if you work with other groups, you do likewise to them.

If necessary, you do the NDAing at arm's length, something like:

	A changes the program
	E employs B under a contract that they don't distribute the
	  program or its source, etc
	E asks A to give B a copy of the program
	A gives B a copy of the program

E isn't covered by the program's license since he never has anything to
do with it. I don't think it would be remotely reasonable or enforcable
(or in line with giving people more free software) to somehow stop A from
giving the program to B, or to stop B from being able to give copies to
people who E approves of.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- 
        you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''

Attachment: pgpijR66zmELg.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: