From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 26 15:51:47 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CA0416A404; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:51:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) Received: from ebb.errno.com (ebb.errno.com [69.12.149.25]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B91C13C455; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:51:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) Received: from [10.0.0.248] (trouble.errno.com [10.0.0.248]) (authenticated bits=0) by ebb.errno.com (8.13.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l3QFo9EH012544 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:50:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) Message-ID: <4630CA33.5000404@errno.com> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:50:11 -0700 From: Sam Leffler User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20070208) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yar Tikhiy References: <200704211417.l3LEHUKK078832@repoman.freebsd.org> <462A27CD.5090006@freebsd.org> <1177170852.32761.0.camel@localhost> <20070424091858.GA31094@comp.chem.msu.su> <462FA0BC.8020207@freebsd.org> <20070426054228.GA53614@comp.chem.msu.su> In-Reply-To: <20070426054228.GA53614@comp.chem.msu.su> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Andre Oppermann , cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, Stephan Uphoff , Coleman Kane Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/amd64/amd64 pmap.c src/sys/i386/i386 pmap.c [NDA's] X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:51:47 -0000 Yar Tikhiy wrote: > Was the change based on a document under NDA? Then this case raises > an interesting question: to what extent an open source developer > is allowed to explain his code that was based on a document under > NDA? Of course, it should depend on the NDA, but I suspect that a > typical NDA requires a lawyer to interpret it unambiguously (I've > never signed one by myself), and an overcautious lawyer would say > that the open source code itself violates the NDA because anybody > can RTFS. :-) NDA's are negotiable. I've signed plenty and am very careful to structure them so that when the work product is to be released to the open source community there is no confusion about whether information may or may not be disclosed. Companies that work with the open source community but require NDA's typically use them to control premature release of information and restrict related information (e.g. product plans). In my experience companies often mark documents w/ an NDA because they don't want to have to deal with the liability of a doc having mistakes and because they don't want to deal with random folks badgering them for support when they can't understand what's written. The key to working with companies is always to establish a level of trust and a relationship with people that work there. Everything else falls out as a result. Sam