Byron Jeff wrote:

>>> There's a misconception with the GPL/LGPL that you have to release your
>>> code to everyone. You only have to release the code to those you distrubute
>>> the product to. And you can have them sign an NDA so that they cannot
>>> further release that code to anyone else because of the NDA.
[...]
>> Then I am misadvised.
[...]
> My mistake. I apologize. You can find Stallman's response to the question
> here:
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-07/msg01342.html

He writes there: 

"It is possible for a person or company to develop changes to a GPL-covered
program and sign an NDA promising not to release these changes *to anyone*.
This is a different case.  As long as these changes are not distributed at
all, a fortiori they are not distributed in a way that violates the GPL.

"However, if and when the changes are distributed to another person or
outside the company, they must be distributed under the terms of the GPL,
not under an NDA."

I wonder where the distinction between employees of a company, a contracted
programmer working for a company and everybody else comes from. 

What is the difference between 1) a (non-employee) programmer who develops
modifications to GPL code under an NDA (which seems to be ok), 2) a company
employee who receives modified GPL code but may not disclose the
modifications to anyone outside the company (which seems also to be ok),
and 3) a client of the company who receives modified GPL code under an NDA
that says that he may not disclose the modifications to anyone (which seems
not to be ok)?

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist