UnitedLinux defends open-source roots (ZDNet) [LWN.net]

ZDNet delves deeper into United Linux, and the "closed beta" that comes with a non-disclosure agreement. ""Since nearly all of the volunteers from the Free Software community (your fellow developers) did not receive a copy of the so-called 'closed beta', we ask that in a show of good faith, you make available at least the terms of distribution you used for that product," [FSF director Bradley] Kuhn said in the letter. "Even as you release your new product to the public, the past situation must be clarified."" Conectiva has made the full text of the NDA available in response.

(Log in to post comments)

UnitedLinux defends open-source roots (ZDNet)

Posted Sep 23, 2002 22:21 UTC (Mon) by ccady (guest, #3898) [Link]

>>... the Counterparty agrees to retain such information in confidence ... unless such information can be shown by documentary evidence to be in the public domain.

Umm, this is a problem, as something under the GPL is not in the public domain.

"Being in the public domain is not a license--rather, it means the material is not copyrighted and no license is needed." -- from Various Licenses and Comments about Them

UnitedLinux defends open-source roots (ZDNet)

Posted Sep 24, 2002 0:06 UTC (Tue) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link]

It can be argued that "public domain" means "publicly available" in this context, and then most GPL software will fall into this category. The reference to GPL in the next sentence confirms this interpretation.

Even then, Conectiva can be in violation of GPL if the distribution included changes to GPL software that had not yet been released to the public. Such software would also fall under GPL. It's a violation of GPL to restrict further distribution of GPL software.

It seems to me, that Conectiva tried to weasel out of this situation by using ambiguity of the term "public domain".

UnitedLinux defends open-source roots (ZDNet)

Posted Sep 24, 2002 3:22 UTC (Tue) by joey (subscriber, #328) [Link]

The next sentence, which mentions the GPL, is not part of the actial NDA, but is later commentary by connectiva. The GPL is nowhere mentioned in the NDA. "Public domain" has a clear legal definition, at least in the US, and GPL is not it.

And indeed you're right about modifications to GPL'd software. And weaseling..

UnitedLinux defends open-source roots (ZDNet)

Posted Sep 24, 2002 18:45 UTC (Tue) by charles (guest, #439) [Link]

The NDA they put up is a StarOffice file inside a .zip file, which isn't the most web-friendly format. I've put up an html version at http://pan.rebelbase.com/~charles/NDA_general_UL.html.