Xref: utzoo comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc:3860 gnu.misc.discuss:1793 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!uunet!shelby!snorkelwacker!bionet!ig!mcb From: mcb@reason.ig.com (Michael C. Berch) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc,gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: Please boycott Xircom Message-ID: Date: 27 Sep 90 22:48:55 GMT References: <1990Sep26.042027.23110@news.clarkson.edu> Followup-To: gnu.misc.discuss Organization: IntelliGenetics, Inc., Mountain View, Calif. USA Lines: 29 In the referenced article, nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes: > Xircom has been distributing a packet driver while violating the copyright > on it. I wrote the skeleton of the Clarkson packet drivers, which is > copyrighted under the GNU General Public License. This copyright requires > that code which is linked with mine be available in source form. I allowed > them to require a signed nondisclosure form, provided that source code be > given to anyone willing to sign. I have no opinion on the specific issue involving Xircom, but I am curious about the issue of the "nondisclosure form". It seems to me that requiring a nondisclosure agreement is completely inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the GNU General Public License (particularly sections 4 and 6), and that such a requirement would probably be void. Since software under the GPL is supposed to be maximally redistributable, what is the rationale for anyone being permitted to require someone to sign an agreement that they will not redistribute it? I am not a supporter of FSF and do not endorse the GPL as a desirable method of software distribution, but from a legal standpoint the combination of the GPL and a nondisclosure agreement seems like a null set to me... Followups to gnu.misc.discuss, please, as this is a GNU issue, not a DOS-TCP/IP networking issue. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@presto.ig.com / uunet!presto.ig.com!mcb / ames!bionet!mcb