[Arm-netbook] evaluating rk3188

[Liviu Dudau]

On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 12:20:45AM +0100, luke.leighton wrote:
> 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.

Luke,

Thanks for your view from the trenches. I appreciate that you have lots
more scars than I do on the compliance front, so you sharing your experience
is very valuable to me.

> 
> > 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.
> 

I confess that I was talking a bit in abstract here and I was thinking
that something akin to the "whistleblower" status applies here. If you
are asked to sign an NDA that goes against the law and then go and
break that contract, I was hoping that the law offers some sort of
protection. But I guess that the "two wrongs don't make one good" rule
applies here.


>  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.

Thanks again,
Liviu

> 
> l.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook at lists.phcomp.co.uk
> http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
> Send large attachments to arm-netbook at files.phcomp.co.uk
> 

-- 
-------------------
   .oooO
   (   )
    \ (  Oooo.
     \_) (   )
          ) /
         (_/

 One small step
   for me ...