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:
pgpwZHsPMGBJZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature