From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32693 invoked by alias); 13 Aug 2010 16:18:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 32680 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Aug 2010 16:18:21 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:18:13 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1DBA2BAB47; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:18:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id UHmDVBkDrKP2; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:18:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (nile.gnat.com [205.232.38.5]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A19A82BAB30; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:18:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C657043.3020206@adacore.com> Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:18:00 -0000 From: Robert Dewar User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Martin_Schr=F6der?= CC: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: generic query regarding GPL and licensing terms associated with gdb 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> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00083.txt.bz2 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!