> Hugo van der Kooij wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 6 Jun 1998, Dave Restall - System Administrator wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Attached is the NDA in PDF format. Apart from it having a few minor
> > > problems in the translation to English, it seems ok. I have a few
> > > reservations about one of the phrases :-
> > >
> > > Paragraph 2 : "...Confidant will not create new or derivative works, or
> > > manufacture on the basis of the PIE information"
> > >
> > > Isn't the driver a "derivative work" ?
> >
> > YES. In the sense that you 'manufacture' a driver based on the PIE
> > information. The best source for this is still their legal department.
>
>
> Hugo, (and Dave) read the NDA. This clause is meant to prevent the
> information from spreading:
>
> You claim to need the information for THIS, and then start also using
> it for THAT.
Now you lost me. I mentioned two different things in two sentences. And
you make it sound like I was making one single statement.
Furthermore I stated in a previous message that it was my impression their
prime objective was to keep their engineering secrets away from the
compitition. But as Dave still seemed not sure about this I advised thim
to put the questions to PIE and let them simplify things for him.
> In this case "THIS" is defined as "writing and maintaining a SANE
> driver for the PIE scanner". (The stuff in the NDA is slightly
> convoluted. I suggest you (Dave) propose this as a replacement) "THAT"
> could be something like developing an NT driver for the things. Or
> writing a driver for a competing MS product, when they have promised
> MS not to allow that to happen.
>
> Dave, it is perfectly normal that you have a few iterations about a
> "contract" before both parties like it. By the time they are editing
> contracts, they are sufficiently interested that they won't back out
> on a "hey, if I read this carefully, it prevents me from doing what we
> agreed on I'd be doing".
>
> > Make a small list of questions they only have to answer with Yes or No and
> > let them sort it out.
> >
> > The questions that pop up are:
> >
> > 1. May a driver be developed based on this information?
>
> Yes. The paragraph before article one says so.
>
> > 2. May a third party use this driver without the author of the driver
> > informing PIE or have that third party sign a similar NDA agreement?
>
> Yes. The information that PIE gives Dave is restricted. The NDA says
> that the purpose of PIE giving information to dave is specifically to
> develop the SANE driver.
>
> > 3. May a third party have access to source code of this driver without
> > the author of that driver informing PIE or have that third party sign a
> > similar NDA agreement?
>
> I think Dave has talked this over with PIE. If I'd suspect that they
> are stupid and TELL me that they really know what GPL means, but in
> fact would be surprised if I released source code, I'd just silently
> go ahead, and wait for "trouble". In the current world, you cannot
> claim that you don't know what GPL is. In case that you've been
> confronted with it you should've found out what it means and that's
> "readily available".
Yes you can. I find plenty of people around that have never heard of the
GPL nor it's implications. I think you take something for granted here
which you should NOT take for granted.
hugo.
+------------------------+------------------------------+
| Hugo van der Kooij | Hugo.van.der.Kooij@caiw.nl |
| Oranje Nassaustraat 16 | http://www.caiw.nl/~hvdkooij |
| 3155 VJ Maasland | (De man met de rode hoed) |
+------------------------+------------------------------+
"Computers let you make more mistakes faster than any other invention in
human history, with the possible exception of handguns and tequila."
(Mitch Radcliffe)
-- Source code, list archive, and docs: http://www.mostang.com/sane/ To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe sane-devel | mail majordomo@mostang.com