> In practice, there is precedent that two separate Chinese courts don't give a damn about the GPL: https://www.chinaiplawyer.com/china-court-protects-violation

> In practice, there is precedent that two separate Chinese courts don't give a damn about the GPL: https://www.chinaiplawyer.com/china-court-protects-violation-gpl-license-agreement/ https://www.chinaiplawyer.com/china-court-protects-violation... The GPLv3 states https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you. so I think the two courts were correct in concluding that the former employee did not have a license to his former employer's unpublished modifications to GPL code. Maybe there is precedent of courts not giving a damn about the GPL, but that example isn't such a case.