From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6158 invoked by alias); 13 Aug 2010 17:50:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 6145 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Aug 2010 17:50:08 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from n3b.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com (HELO n3b.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com) (76.13.13.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with SMTP; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:50:04 +0000 Received: from [76.13.12.94] by n3.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Aug 2010 17:50:02 -0000 Received: from [98.137.27.132] by t2.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Aug 2010 17:50:02 -0000 Received: from [98.137.27.215] by t4.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Aug 2010 17:50:02 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp125.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Aug 2010 17:50:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 97839 invoked by uid 60001); 13 Aug 2010 17:50:02 -0000 Message-ID: <345075.95668.qm@web112503.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Received: from [123.237.136.43] by web112503.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 10:50:00 PDT References: <215382.96867.qm@web112514.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4C64D224.1030001@adacore.com> <350785.50982.qm@web112515.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <53EE6DB2F971468D9FEEC38287F36875@igor> <4C65560E.2060001@adacore.com> <4C657043.3020206@adacore.com> Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:50:00 -0000 From: paawan oza Subject: Re: generic query regarding GPL and licensing terms associated with gdb To: Robert Dewar , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Martin_Schr=F6der?= Cc: gdb@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <4C657043.3020206@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-08/txt/msg00084.txt.bz2 well, actually my intension was to understand legal, license and employer's= =20 right point of view. I remember when I submit a patch for gdb, my employer used to evaluate its= =20 business sense and value and revenue capabilities. then considering certain factors, they allow it to go to open source. so I was confused having so many terms used together such as GPL, redistrib= ute,=20 modifying source code etc. so I came up with the hyphothetical scnerio. thank you for the inputs as licensing issues are also good to know and thei= r=20 legal consequences. : ) Regards, Oza. ----- Original Message ---- From: Robert Dewar To: Martin Schr=F6der Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Sent: Fri, August 13, 2010 9:48:11 PM Subject: Re: generic query regarding GPL and licensing terms associated wit= h gdb Martin, what you are saying is seriously wrong! The GPL never automatically forces disclosure of anything. If you take GPL code, modify it by adding trade secrets, and then distribute it without giving a GPL license, it is not the case that somehow you have lost the trade secrets, or that anyone is free to disclose them. That is not at all the case. Yes, it is true that if you grant a GPL license to someone for the distrtibuted object, then of course there are no ytrade secrets. But NO ONE EVER forces you to issue a GPL license. You most certainly can redistribute without granting such a license (and if there are trade secrets present, then indeed you cannot grant a valid GPL license anyway). Now if you *DO* redistribute in this manner, you have likely committed a copyright violation, actionable in the usual way. In response to such a claim of copyright violation, you can AT YOUR DISCRETION, cure the infringement in the future by granting a GPL license, but no one forces you to do so, The GPL NEVER forces you to disclose anything, it simply says that if you meet certain disclosure and distribution requirements then you have a license to redistribute, that's all!