Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 16:34:32 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: "Gary W. Swearingen" <swear@blarg.net> Cc: FreeBSD Chat <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Abuses of the BSD license? Message-ID: <3CB37A88.EEB78B79@mindspring.com> References: <200204051922.06556@silver.dt1.binity.net> <3CAE7037.801FB15F@optusnet.com.au> <3CAEA028.186ED53E@optusnet.com.au> <3CAED90B.F4B7905@mindspring.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020406124622.019bfdc8@threespace.com> <3CAF7FB9.3259C392@mindspring.com> <qmu1qmzwkb.1qm@localhost.localdomain> <3CB1196B.403F465D@mindspring.com> <26g026zq9y.026@localhost.localdomain> <3CB14B08.91041978@mindspring.com> <cubscuywc5.scu@localhost.localdomain> <3CB219DA.1B7DFB06@mindspring.com> <y53cy5zryy.cy5@localhost.localdomain> <3CB26D50.7FE4DED4@mindspring.com> <lor8loyeer.8lo@localhost.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Gary W. Swearingen" wrote: > > It depends on the contract. In most non-disclosure agreements > > guarding trade secret disclosure, you are in fact given the > > responsibilities of a proprieter, in exchange for limited rights > > and order valuable considerations. > > Whether or not that statement is true, you are not given (even limited) > exclusive rights and so you are not a proprietor (by your definition and > mine). Having the responsibilities of a proprietor doesn't make you one > when you also have the (exclusive, in this case) rights of one. http://www.ilrg.com/forms/confidagree.html http://www.bitlaw.com/forms/nda.html http://www.bynari.net/custsw.html (section 6 is particularly meaningful) In general, there was quite a humorous thread a while back, when a FreeBSD developer was given a configentiality agreement that: whether Recipient should merely agree to protect the confidential information in a manner similar to the way the Recipient protects its own confidential information. ...of course, the way they protected their own confidential information was by committing it in source for to the FreeBSD source tree. 8-). > > > I suppose only courts can say when distribution to a select group > > > becomes publishing. It seems clear to me, however; that those source > > > files just discussed in a nearby thread, which claimed to be > > > unpublished, were, in fact, published, unless some fine print in their > > > system licenses have more to say (NDA?) on the matter. > > > > No, they were unpublished proprietary works. > > You provided no more evidence for the claim than they did. They made it > available to the public. The did *NOT* make it available to "the public", they made it available to "a select group". > Any member of the public who purchases or logs on to (or even sits > down at) one of those computers is going to have access to the works. Only after having executes a shringwrap license agreement, thereby making them members of the "select group". > How is that not publishing? Under what definition > of publishing is that source code unpublished? 1. To make public; to make known to mankind, or to people in general; to divulge, as a private transaction; to promulgate or proclaim, as a law or an edict. -- not published under that one... 2. To make known by posting, or by reading in a church; as, to publish banns of marriage. -- not published under that one... 3. To send forth, as a book, newspaper, musical piece, or other printed work, either for sale or for general distribution; to print, and issue from the press. -- not published under that one: not for sale (merely licensed for use), not for general distribution (only for ditribution to a select group), not printed. 4. To utter, or put into circulation; as, to publish counterfeit paper. -- arguable, if the code is bogus... 8-) 8-) 8-). > You haven't said that there is any NDA involved, even after I hinted > (above) for you to do so. There is a license. Any rights not granted to the licensee by the licensor are reserved to the licensor. > > > > The > > > > failure to publish -- or to have the intent to publish -- removes > > > > most copyright protection. > > I agreed too readily with this before. AFAIK, failure to publish or > (intend to) removes no copyright protect. But I recall reading a little > about unpublished works, so I suppose there are some few differences in > some few cases. But for a counter-example, someone's personal letters > carry normal copyrights even though the person's will requires them to > be burned uncopied and unread. Letters are published. > So the distribution (not publication) of trade-secret-containing > software under a copyright license and NDA is quite reasonable. And that's what they did. In fact, it's probably a technical license violation for what was published in this forum, with regard to the status of the works, based on their attached license provisions. You'll notice that I personally have not posted the direct information. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3CB37A88.EEB78B79>