Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>Privacy problem ? Could you clearly define that. If the author is able to make >>a request to you, your privacy is already lost anyway. This is if i understand >>this argument right. > > As I explained earlier, it might be public knowledge (because of press > releases and job adverts) that you are modifying compiler X to exploit > the new CPU architecture that you are developing and that you are > distributing a prototype of the compiler to partners. However, you > don't want to publicly release the code itself because the code would > reveal details of the CPU architecture that you do not want the world > to know about yet.
I would like to point out again that while I do think 6c is a problem, the case you describe is not one we want to allow, and not one the GPL would allow either. The problem with 6c is that you can't distribute modifications privately to only a few people/organizations, even when you grant those people/organizations all the Freedoms of Free Software. Your proposed scenario implies that you are restricting the rights of the "partners" to distribute your software and/or get its source, which is not something we need the right to do. - Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
