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. > > > _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
