3 ms·

The GPL gives you a licence to the code, you don't need to own the copyright.

Kye 5y ago
The problem appears to come when someone doesn't have the right to license it under (any) GPL in the first place because their employer owns all code they write.
kube-system 5y ago
Yes, but I can’t put GPL on someone else code. Whoever owns the code has to do it. And when I write code for hire, I have no right to the code, the legal person who hired me does. So, how would I put a GPL license on code that I wrote for somebody else without their permission?
- Quekid5 5y ago
  When writing GPL'ed code for your employer your employer must obviously be (made) aware that that code is going to be licensed under the GPL. Therefore, as the copyright holder -- they have already given permission for that license to be used or they must do so. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    Nope, sorry, it's not that straightforward at all: Under American labour laws (in many, but perhaps not all jurisdictions), your employer owns the copyright to whatever you write even on your own time. So they might not even have known, at the time, that you were writing something in the first place. But if you do so and release it without notifying them, and they later find out you wrote it while in their employ, they might claim that "Hey, that's _ours,_ and we sure never authorised releasing that under <<whatever>> license!"
    - Quekid5 5y ago
      I think you might be missing context for the thread? Or maybe I'm inferring context that isn't there. I thought we were discussing the "no copyright assignment" scenario. > But if you do so and release it without notifying them That's them not doing due diligence as far as I can tell. The employee would also be in breach of contract, possibly even committing a crime. Employees can do all sort of illegal acts while in the employ of someone else... and when that happens you prosecute them (if it's egregious enough). I suppose it may mean that an upstream project may be harmed quite badly if this goes on for long enough... ... but that's no different for any open source project. Or even closed source: Maybe an employee is working for two companies and 'reusing' code in an unauthorized way.
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        > I think you might be missing context for the thread? Or maybe I'm inferring context that isn't there. I don't think I was, and I think you were. > I thought we were discussing the "no copyright assignment" scenario. Yup, exactly. Not that it makes much of a difference: To release something under any license, even without assigning any copyright, you need to have the copyright. (Or similar rights granted by a license, but in the end those too have to stem from someone actually having the right to license the thing they're licensing -- i.e. copyright.) > > But if you do so and release it without notifying them > That's them not doing due diligence as far as I can tell. Not if you wrote and released it after you were already employed, now is it? > The employee would also be in breach of contract, possibly even committing a crime. Yes, exactly. Are you saying that can never happen, or what? That's exactly what I was pointing out. > Employees can do all sort of illegal acts while in the employ of someone else... and when that happens you prosecute them (if it's egregious enough). Sure. But if you're a FOSS project that they've contributed code to, with or without copyright assignment, that doesn't help you. You've still got to rip it out. Sigh... I must have been unclear in my GP comment. So I'll go back to your GGP and try another tack: > > > When writing GPL'ed code for your employer your employer must obviously be (made) aware that that code is going to be licensed under the GPL. Therefore, as the copyright holder -- they have already given permission for that license to be used or they must do so. But if you write code and release it under the GPL there's nothing to say that you necessarily are doing it "for your employer". People could well assume that since they wrote something on their own machine and their own time, it has nothing to do with their job -- and then be in for a nasty surprise when their employer has a different opinion on that. The employer may well have had no idea at the time that someone was writing and releasing code, so they have neither already given permission for it to be licensed thus, nor do they have to.
- MaxBarraclough 5y ago
  > I can’t put GPL on someone else code. Whoever owns the code has to do it. Perhaps a nitpick, but this doesn't seem to take account of derivative works like forks. If Alice releases libalice under a permissive licence, Bob can develop a fork of libalice and release that fork under the GPL.

Kye 5y ago

The problem appears to come when someone doesn't have the right to license it under (any) GPL in the first place because their employer owns all code they write.

kube-system 5y ago

Yes, but I can’t put GPL on someone else code. Whoever owns the code has to do it. And when I write code for hire, I have no right to the code, the legal person who hired me does. So, how would I put a GPL license on code that I wrote for somebody else without their permission?

Quekid5 5y ago
When writing GPL'ed code for your employer your employer must obviously be (made) aware that that code is going to be licensed under the GPL. Therefore, as the copyright holder -- they have already given permission for that license to be used or they must do so. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  Nope, sorry, it's not that straightforward at all: Under American labour laws (in many, but perhaps not all jurisdictions), your employer owns the copyright to whatever you write even on your own time. So they might not even have known, at the time, that you were writing something in the first place. But if you do so and release it without notifying them, and they later find out you wrote it while in their employ, they might claim that "Hey, that's _ours,_ and we sure never authorised releasing that under <<whatever>> license!"
  - Quekid5 5y ago
    I think you might be missing context for the thread? Or maybe I'm inferring context that isn't there. I thought we were discussing the "no copyright assignment" scenario. > But if you do so and release it without notifying them That's them not doing due diligence as far as I can tell. The employee would also be in breach of contract, possibly even committing a crime. Employees can do all sort of illegal acts while in the employ of someone else... and when that happens you prosecute them (if it's egregious enough). I suppose it may mean that an upstream project may be harmed quite badly if this goes on for long enough... ... but that's no different for any open source project. Or even closed source: Maybe an employee is working for two companies and 'reusing' code in an unauthorized way.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > I think you might be missing context for the thread? Or maybe I'm inferring context that isn't there. I don't think I was, and I think you were. > I thought we were discussing the "no copyright assignment" scenario. Yup, exactly. Not that it makes much of a difference: To release something under any license, even without assigning any copyright, you need to have the copyright. (Or similar rights granted by a license, but in the end those too have to stem from someone actually having the right to license the thing they're licensing -- i.e. copyright.) > > But if you do so and release it without notifying them > That's them not doing due diligence as far as I can tell. Not if you wrote and released it after you were already employed, now is it? > The employee would also be in breach of contract, possibly even committing a crime. Yes, exactly. Are you saying that can never happen, or what? That's exactly what I was pointing out. > Employees can do all sort of illegal acts while in the employ of someone else... and when that happens you prosecute them (if it's egregious enough). Sure. But if you're a FOSS project that they've contributed code to, with or without copyright assignment, that doesn't help you. You've still got to rip it out. Sigh... I must have been unclear in my GP comment. So I'll go back to your GGP and try another tack: > > > When writing GPL'ed code for your employer your employer must obviously be (made) aware that that code is going to be licensed under the GPL. Therefore, as the copyright holder -- they have already given permission for that license to be used or they must do so. But if you write code and release it under the GPL there's nothing to say that you necessarily are doing it "for your employer". People could well assume that since they wrote something on their own machine and their own time, it has nothing to do with their job -- and then be in for a nasty surprise when their employer has a different opinion on that. The employer may well have had no idea at the time that someone was writing and releasing code, so they have neither already given permission for it to be licensed thus, nor do they have to.
MaxBarraclough 5y ago
> I can’t put GPL on someone else code. Whoever owns the code has to do it. Perhaps a nitpick, but this doesn't seem to take account of derivative works like forks. If Alice releases libalice under a permissive licence, Bob can develop a fork of libalice and release that fork under the GPL.