-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Brad Hards wrote:
[snip]
> It is probably cleaner to put the source code on the same disk. That way, if
> it doesn't leak, you have no problems, and if it does leak, well you might
> have problems with GPL negating some of your patents on those protocols, but
> at least you aren't in direct copyright infringement.
Whoa, IANAL either but my understanding of this is just the reverse: if
you modify a GPL program and the mod.s are encumbered by patents or
whatever, your patents are still OK but your redistribution rights under
GPL are revoked. That is, it *is* a copyright violation but you *don't*
damage your patent. GPL essentially says that you may not redistribute if
you choose or are required to place restrictions on distribution which
conflict with the rights granted by GPL. See section 7 (of GPL v2).
But please ask your lawyer if you want a legal opinion.
Sorry, but there's a lot of FUD out there about GPL damaging patents and I
don't want it to get any worse. It's my understanding that patents can
only be damaged by the discovery of prior art or the exercise of eminent
domain.
Notice that patents are not the only potential problem. If you let a
trade secret slip, it's lost forever, and if you let *someone else's*
trade secret slip, then violation of the GPL is the least of your worries.
They may have licensed unFree technology from someone else and be
contractually barred from disclosing some of the source. (A bad move
IMHO, but I've never run a business so what do I know?)
- --
Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer mwood@xxxxxxxxx
MS Windows *is* user-friendly, but only for certain values of "user".
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: pgpenvelope 2.10.2 - http://pgpenvelope.sourceforge.net/
iD8DBQE/XJums/NR4JuTKG8RAhSGAJ4jfZT2dpt/I5ILeNZa2+zGZcaO2ACgmvDa
AkXvu0eKE2EOin2GUakQ2a4=
=1lPt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
