This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: Serial VS Diagnostic interface
> Andrew: in case it's any help, the GPL clause 3(a) releases you from any
> obligation to make public any source code *provided* that you accompany any
> binary image (or product containing the binary image) with the relevant
> source code. This means that if you are only distributing it to people who
> have also already signed the NDA, then as long as you include the source
> code with it at the same time you should be ok (I should add a disclaimer:
> I am not a lawyer!). If they want to distribute it further, it's up to them
> to comply with the licence.
Thanks for the clarification. Considering the code is only distributed
to people sharing the NDA, and that it is always distributed in source
format with all modifications clearly mentioned, everything should be
> I believe the potential conflict with NDAs is dealt with under GPL clause
> 7, essentially: "If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously
> your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations,
> then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. "
> So your own driver might be the better solution. I would doubt that having
> a patch but not documenting the IP vendor would be sufficient to avoid the
> letter of your NDA.
> Alternatively it may be easiest to ping whoever you have the NDA with to
> ask if its ok to make public code using that register. It doesn't sound to
> me like one particular register in a UART is something that is really the
> focus of the private IP they are trying to conceal by NDA. A lot of
> companies just habitually have NDAs for everything that they aren't
> actually making public themselves.
> Of course I Am Not A Lawyer.
> eCosCentric Limited http://www.eCosCentric.com/ The eCos experts
> Barnwell House, Barnwell Drive, Cambridge, UK. Tel: +44 1223 245571
> Registered in England and Wales: Reg No 4422071.
> ------["Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere"]------ Opinions==mine