www/licenses/old-licenses gpl-2.0-faq.html

[Therese Godefroy]

CVSROOT:        /webcvs/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Therese Godefroy <th_g> 19/08/01 04:59:16

Modified files:
        licenses/old-licenses: gpl-2.0-faq.html 

Log message:
        Update entry on trade secrets (RT #1413762).

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.44&r2=1.45

Patches:
Index: gpl-2.0-faq.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /webcvs/www/www/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html,v
retrieving revision 1.44
retrieving revision 1.45
diff -u -b -r1.44 -r1.45
--- gpl-2.0-faq.html    15 Dec 2018 14:02:37 -0000      1.44
+++ gpl-2.0-faq.html    1 Aug 2019 08:59:15 -0000       1.45
@@ -277,7 +277,12 @@
     version?</a></li>
 
     <li><a href="#TradeSecretRelease" name="TOCTradeSecretRelease">
-    What if a company distributes a copy as a trade secret?</a></li>
+    What if a company distributes a copy of some other developers'
+    GPL-covered work to me as a trade secret?</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#TradeSecretRelease2" name="TOCTradeSecretRelease2">
+    What if a company distributes a copy of its own GPL-covered work to
+    me as a trade secret?</a></li>
 
     <li><a href="#DistributeSubsidiary" name="TOCDistributeSubsidiary"> 
     Does moving a copy to a majority-owned, and controlled, subsidiary
@@ -1940,7 +1945,6 @@
 to contractors for use off-site is distribution.
 </p></dd>
 
-
 <dt><b><a href="#TOCStolenCopy" name="StolenCopy"> If someone steals
     a CD containing a version of a GPL-covered program, does the GPL
     give him the right to redistribute that version?</a></b></dt>
@@ -1959,17 +1963,36 @@
 hasn't released this version, no such violation has occurred.
 </p></dd>
 
+
 <dt><b><a href="#TOCTradeSecretRelease"
-    name="TradeSecretRelease">What if a company distributes a copy as
-    a trade secret?</a></b></dt>
+    name="TradeSecretRelease">What if a company distributes a copy of
+    some other developers' GPL-covered work to me as a trade
+    secret?</a></b></dt>
+
 <dd>
-If a company distributes a copy to you and claims it is a trade
-secret, the company has violated the GPL and will have to cease
-distribution.  Note how this differs from the theft case above; the
+The company has violated the GPL and will have to cease distribution
+of that program. Note how this differs from the theft case above; the
 company does not intentionally distribute a copy when a copy is
 stolen, so in that case the company has not violated the GPL.
 </dd>
 
+
+<dt><b><a href="#TOCTradeSecretRelease2"
+    name="TradeSecretRelease2">What if a company distributes a copy
+    of its own GPL-covered work to me as a trade secret?
+
+<dd>
+If the program distributed does not incorporate anyone else's
+GPL-covered work, then the company is not violating the GPL (see
+&ldquo;<a href="#DeveloperViolate">Is the developer of a GPL-covered
+program bound by the GPL?</a>&rdquo; for more information). But it is
+making two contradictory statements about what you can do with that
+program: that you can redistribute it, and that you can't. It would
+make sense to demand clarification of the terms for use of that program
+before you accept a copy.
+</dd>
+
+
 <dt><b><a href="#TOCWhySomeGPLAndNotLGPL"
   name="WhySomeGPLAndNotLGPL">Why are some GNU libraries released under
   the ordinary GPL rather than the Lesser GPL?</a></b></dt>
@@ -2482,7 +2505,7 @@
 
 <p class="unprintable">Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2018/12/15 14:02:37 $
+$Date: 2019/08/01 08:59:15 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>