[Arm-netbook] evaluating rk3188

[luke.leighton]

On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Liviu Dudau <liviu at dudau.co.uk> wrote:

>> so, my statement is correct: GPL + NDA results in both parties getting
>> screwed.  one under section 6 and one under section 7.
>
> Yes and no. What I was trying to say is that you can never have GPL and
> an anti-GPL NDA put together.

 you can... you can have an anti-GPL NDA which is then *incompatible*
with the GPL.

> If you do so the result is that one of the
> agreements is null.

 no, that's incorrect.  it means that they're *incompatible*, *not*
null.  that incompatibility is *your* problem under section 7, and
*their* problem under section 6.

 the only way that the one of the agreements is "null" is if a court
rules that they're null and void.  the only way to get an entire
contract made null and void is to be able to prove that one or other
party "misunderstands" the contract.  this is usually very very
difficult to prove.


> You can choose which one you want to consider nulled
> by "de facto", I will always choose to consider the NDA void.

 you will get yourself into deep shit if you consider that.  i
recommend that you get legal advice.

> In other
> words, if I get the GPL source code, even if under NDA, I will release
> that code as it is under a more valid agreement than the NDA.

 that is a very dangerous thing to believe.  please seek legal advice
before acting on that belief.  if you have sought legal advice and
have that legal opinion in writing then you can get insurance which
covers any liability should that opinion turn out to be wrong (i.e.
you can sue the legal firm for any loss or damages sought and obtained
against you and recover all costs).

 if however your personal opinion turns out to be wrong then you are
wholly and fully liable for all damages sought against you.

> They should
> not ask me to sign a non-disclosure agreement for a piece of code that
> they don't have a license for (lost by the very fact of showng an NDA to
> me).

 .... and you should not have signed it.  by signing it, you are
agreeing to be bound by its terms - IN FULL.  that's what you agreed,
and you are required to honour that agreement, under the laws of the
country that you both agree has enforcement jurisdiction when you
signed it.

 section 7 of the GPL covers the specific case where you are unable to
honour that other agreement (in this case, an NDA) - and it basically
says that if you cannot honour that agreement, then you must cease all
distribution.

 basically it doesn't matter if the agreement is "incompatible" - you
basically should never have signed it.  if someone asks you to sign an
NDA that's unenforceable, incompatible (or illegal), that has NOTHING
TO DO WITH YOU - it's their problem that they're acting illegally etc.
etc. - but that illegality etc. etc. on their part is *separate* from
*your* obligations.  if you sign that illegal or incompatible NDA,
then YOU ARE BOUND BY IT, end of story.

 in certain cases, it's actually illegal to ask people to sign certain
types of contracts: the Treaty of Rome for example makes it illegal
for e.g. the USA to ask a UK citizen to sign away all rights to
ownership of source code for example, just because they're outside of
the USA jurisdiction.  this did actually happen to me once: i was
offered a contract to work on a pyjamas application and the company
demanded all ownership of all copyright - they didn't understand that
what they'd offered was illegal.

 ... but what i don't know is whether NDAs are also covered by the
Treaty of Rome: my understanding (which could be wrong) is that they
cover employment and other contracts only, not NDAs.  worth
checking... but it still doesn't help: you sign an illegal employment
contract, you're *still* bound by it - all of it.

l.