I develop a software where I do have a NDA part, how can I handle this?
I have to link the code against : glibc (LGPL) libusb (LGPL) libnova (LGPL)
if I refer to http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/tech/2007-November.txt.gz , I am allowed to hide the source code for the NDA piece of the code and publish the sources not relating to the NDA.
What should I tell the community ? Can I still use the GPL licensing? How should I behave with the LGPL projects owners/maintainers
Thanks a lot for your help in this case.
Yves Autran
Hi Yves
Yves Autran wrote:
I develop a software where I do have a NDA part, how can I handle this? I have to link the code against : glibc (LGPL) libusb (LGPL) libnova (LGPL) if I refer to http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/tech/2007-November.txt.gz , I am allowed to hide the source code for the NDA piece of the code and publish the sources not relating to the NDA. What should I tell the community ? Can I still use the GPL licensing? How should I behave with the LGPL projects owners/maintainers
I think it would be useful to look at the GPL FAQ:
# Does the GPL allow me to distribute a copy under a nondisclosure agreement? http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowNDA
# Does the GPL allow me to distribute a modified or beta version under a nondisclosure agreement? http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowModNDA
# Does the GPL allow me to develop a modified version under a nondisclosure agreement? http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DevelopChangesUnderNDA
I hope this helps.
Shane
Shane, It helps a lot, I just have to read some more time in order to really understand those FAQ. Many thanks for your help. I will get back to the list as soon as i have read and understood all of this.
Yves
Shane Martin Coughlan a écrit :
Hi Yves
Yves Autran wrote:
I develop a software where I do have a NDA part, how can I handle this? I have to link the code against : glibc (LGPL) libusb (LGPL) libnova (LGPL) if I refer to http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/tech/2007-November.txt.gz , I am allowed to hide the source code for the NDA piece of the code and publish the sources not relating to the NDA. What should I tell the community ? Can I still use the GPL licensing? How should I behave with the LGPL projects owners/maintainers
I think it would be useful to look at the GPL FAQ:
# Does the GPL allow me to distribute a copy under a nondisclosure agreement? http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowNDA
# Does the GPL allow me to distribute a modified or beta version under a nondisclosure agreement? http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowModNDA
# Does the GPL allow me to develop a modified version under a nondisclosure agreement? http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DevelopChangesUnderNDA
I hope this helps.
Shane
On Sun, 2008-03-02 at 10:02 +0100, Yves Autran wrote:
I develop a software where I do have a NDA part, how can I handle this?
I have to link the code against : glibc (LGPL) libusb (LGPL) libnova (LGPL)
if I refer to http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/tech/2007-November.txt.gz , I am allowed to hide the source code for the NDA piece of the code and publish the sources not relating to the NDA.
What should I tell the community ? Can I still use the GPL licensing? How should I behave with the LGPL projects owners/maintainers
Thanks a lot for your help in this case.
It really depends on the terms of the NDA, in many some cases the NDA covers the information need to write the software but the software itself can be freely released.
If you wan to keep the software closed and distribute* it you cannot use the GPL license.
The LGPL license is more permissive, you don't necessarily need to release the non LGPL portions in source form, but read very well the requirements of the LGPL, you still need to make it possible for a party to change any LGPL code and recompile the resulting software, so unless all LGPL code is loaded as shared objects, you may need to provide .o/.h files and Makefiles needed to rebuild the application.
Simo.
* distribution is generally any transfer of the software across legal boundaries, even a single copy conveyed to a third party is distribution.
The NDA thing is about the informations needed to decode a block of data sent by a device. of course nothing relating to any kind of cryptography . Providing the .h and .o files for this very specific and well defined NDA matter should not be a problem. We do not want to keep the software closed, except for the NDA part.
Many thanks for your advices.
simo a écrit :
On Sun, 2008-03-02 at 10:02 +0100, Yves Autran wrote:
I develop a software where I do have a NDA part, how can I handle this?
I have to link the code against : glibc (LGPL) libusb (LGPL) libnova (LGPL)
if I refer to http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/tech/2007-November.txt.gz , I am allowed to hide the source code for the NDA piece of the code and publish the sources not relating to the NDA.
What should I tell the community ? Can I still use the GPL licensing? How should I behave with the LGPL projects owners/maintainers
Thanks a lot for your help in this case.
It really depends on the terms of the NDA, in many some cases the NDA covers the information need to write the software but the software itself can be freely released.
If you wan to keep the software closed and distribute* it you cannot use the GPL license.
The LGPL license is more permissive, you don't necessarily need to release the non LGPL portions in source form, but read very well the requirements of the LGPL, you still need to make it possible for a party to change any LGPL code and recompile the resulting software, so unless all LGPL code is loaded as shared objects, you may need to provide .o/.h files and Makefiles needed to rebuild the application.
Simo.
- distribution is generally any transfer of the software across legal
boundaries, even a single copy conveyed to a third party is distribution.