4 ms·
>>Would the GPL prevent that employee from being fired and/or sued for violation of NDA? That is not even close to being an analogy. In that case the Code, co
by phpisthebest 3y ago
>>Would the GPL prevent that employee from being fired and/or sued for violation of NDA?
That is not even close to being an analogy. In that case the Code, copyright, was not transferred to the employee, They are not operating under the conditions of the GPL at all. As an employee I am not given a "license" to the code as I would be as a customer or licensee of the code.
As such violation of the NDA would have nothing to do with the GPL at all.
- dralley 3y ago> In that case the Code, copyright, was not transferred to the employee, They are not operating under the conditions of the GPL at all. In this scenario let's say that the patches are GPLv2 licensed and apply to a larger GPLv2 codebase, as opposed to something like a separate kernel module. So the code is, indeed, GPL, and both the built kernels and the source itself are unambiguously a derivative work of GPL code. And this code is distributed to you as part of your job. It wasn't stolen, it was provided to you with specific terms of use, namely that it only be used within the company. Is your argument that there can be no legal constraints beyond what "the GPL says" in this situation? That those constraints shouldn't apply, because they infringe your GPL-provided rights?