🚀 go-pugleaf

Piercarlo Grandi wrote:
> However Sony almost certainly distribute the Cygnus GCC kit with an NDA
> that forbids revealing to anyone any detail of the PS2 CPU, [...]
> the Cygnus announcements states flatly that the GCC kit is only
> available to people that have signed the Sony NDA: [...]
> If this is the case, wouldn't this be a straight, clearcut violation of
> the GPL by Sony _and_ Cygnus?

It sure looks like a violation by Sony to me, but not by Cygnus
unless they try to enforce Sony's NDA.


TTK Ciar replied:
>   No.  The GPL requires that whenever the binary is made available, so
> must the source to that binary.

The GPL requires that whenever the binary is made available, so must
the source to that binary, *with full unrestricted GPL rights*.

Sony is subject to the clause "you may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein"
and so cannot use an NDA to restrict recipients from freely
distributing GCC.  By attempting to do so, they automatically lose
their right to distribute GCC at all.

This is absolutely clear, black-on-white in the text of the GPL.


Certainly when I distribute some of my software with GPL licence, I do
not intend its terms to be circumvented in this manner (not that
anyone cares about my meagre contribution, but its the principle of
the thing).


>   Hypothetical situation:  Joe has signed an NDA and has a copy of gcc
> which that NDA prohibits him from distributing [...]
>   If Joe gives Mark the gcc binaries and source, then only the NDA is
> being violated.

I agree with what you say here but whoever gave Joe a copy of GCC
cannot restrict his right to distribute it, with an NDA or otherwise.
If they try to, they have no right to distribute GCC.  

It is up to the copyright holder, in this case FSF, to defend their
interests.  Consider me somewhat shocked that, on the contrary, they
appear to knowingly allow and excuse such violations.


Bye,
  Rob.