Westerman, Mark wrote: >If I contract Company "X" to modify GPL code to include Company's "X" >software patent. Company "X" must then accept the terms of the GPL >in order to perform the work otherwise you could not do the work under >the terms of the GPL. If Company "X" modify GPL code to include >Company's "Y" patent then Company "X" is liable to Company "Y" >for damages. Is SCC going to sue itself? > On the other hand, if I contract Joe-Bob Haxor as a 1099 contractor working in my shop slinging code, doing mods to GPL'd code, that is NOT distribution, and I don't have to let the GPL'd code out of the building. The subtle point of interpretation is whether Secure Computing Corporation can be considered an "employee" of the NSA. >In other word, if I hire you to rob a bank you still go to jail. > >As a "work for hire" you still must abide by all laws and licenses. > The point in question is what constitutes "distribution": giving GPL'd code to an employee of an organization within that organization does not constitute distribution, while selling GPL'd code to a 3rd party does. The SCC/NSA situation appears to be in the twilight zone. Crispin -- Crispin Cowan, Ph.D. Chief Scientist, WireX http://wirex.com/~crispin/ Security Hardened Linux Distribution: http://immunix.org Available for purchase: http://wirex.com/Products/Immunix/purchase.html _______________________________________________ linux-security-module mailing list linux-security-moduleat_private http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jul 29 2002 - 18:13:44 PDT