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 <email@example.com> <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!''
Description: PGP signature