On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 12:06:12PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote: > > 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 > This would leave A free to distribute the modifications. Sorry, it would leave A free to distribute the original program, but the point is that it would leave B with a copy of the program to work on (presumably under E's direction), but unable to give copies of it to anyone else whenever he likes. You might consider E to be employing both A and B (and thus that A is already under similar restrictions). > If the program were GPLed, it _would_ stop B from being able to give > copies to anyone unless the copies were unrestricted. No, the GPL's satisfied here: ] 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the ] Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the ] original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to ] these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further ] restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. ] You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to ] this License. The only person redistributing the program is A. The person imposing further restrictions is E -- not "You". > I think the end result of your scenario is that only B is restricted. That's the point though: you can end up stopping all your employees from distributing the code through fairly standard employment contract terms, and you're done - the ASP loophole's open again, and you can make your modifications and stick them in your CGI directory. If you want to generalise it, think of: A = www.debian.org B, C, D = employees E = agent for employer Each employee can download from A happily; each is under NDA with E, and E never downloads anything so isn't bound by the license. B, C and D can share their changes quite happily if they pass them around if "diff --ed" form. This is the harder way of doing it, of course; the easiest way is to say that it's not the employees who own the copy of the program but the company, and that all the work the employees do is a "work for hire" and copyright is owned by the company; then there's no question of the employees being able to distribute copies -- they don't own the copy they have so they have no rights at all -- cf the various sourceless beta tests of GPLed software that people have gotten away with. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <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