Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S267257AbTBKHco>; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 02:32:44 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S267276AbTBKHcn>; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 02:32:43 -0500
Received: from waldorf.cs.uni-dortmund.de ([129.217.4.42]:49573 "EHLO
	waldorf.cs.uni-dortmund.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S267257AbTBKHck>; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 02:32:40 -0500
Message-Id: <200302110742.h1B7gQqE011999@eeyore.valparaiso.cl>
To: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Monta Vista software license terms 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 10 Feb 2003 13:33:20 PST."
             <20030210213349.AAA18154@shell.webmaster.com@whenever> 
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 08:42:26 +0100
From: Horst von Brand <brand@jupiter.cs.uni-dortmund.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1872
Lines: 37

> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:42:45 -0600, Oliver Xymoron wrote:
> >I certainly agree, but the problem is the NDA puts the shoe on the
> >other foot and now it's the customer that has to consult a lawyer or
> >risk a nuisance suit before proceeding. So while it may not forbid, >it
> >certainly discourages and impedes. Let me point out that I never saw
> >the NDA in question but said coworker was sufficiently intimidated >by
> >it that he was unwilling to give me a copy of the kernel and gcc
> >sources because of it.

> 	I believe such a provision would, unfortunately, by considered 
> legally enforceable. The rationale would be that the rights you (the 
> recipient of the derived work) have under the GPL would only apply if 
> the distributor were bound by the GPL. The only way the distributor 
> could be bound by the GPL was if he or she did something that he 
> didn't have the right to do without the GPL to give him or her such a 
> right.

The GPL gives me the right to distribute modified versions _only if I
comply with the GPL_. And GPL forbids further restrictions when
distributing.

If your bizarre interpretation was right, no software licence at all would
have any validity. In particular, I'd be more than very surprised if the
GPL was so sloppily written. It was written with the input of eminent
lawyers, after all.

IANAL, etc.
-- 
Dr. Horst H. von Brand                   User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica                     Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria              +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile                Fax:  +56 32 797513
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/