> Alex Belits wrote:
> >
> > It's very unlikely that HP will want to make their version of gcc and
> > not release it because:
> >
> > 1. It will violate GPL.
>
> I would argue the opposite.
>
> It violates the GPL only if they were to release gcc purely in binary
> form. If they ported gcc, they could in good conscience keep it to
> themselves.
>
> Keeping it to themselves would be a pretty unsociable thing to do if
> it ever came to pass, but they'd be allowed.
IMHO It will be so if HP didn't have employees. Employees' NDA combined
with internal modified gcc use will produce violation of GPL, not just
having (and not using) modified gcc: employee can use modified gcc only
for his work for the company and can't distribute it while original gcc
was obtained under condition that any modified version if given to
someone, should be given under the same license that original one was
received.
Of course, not being a lawyer I may be wrong -- I can imagine that for
some strange and obscure reason employee's contract and NDA can't be
considered to always include a kind of very restrictive license for using
company's property and resources for the company's benefit, but I don't
see any such reason.
-- Alex