5 ms·

This is a bit of a tangent, but Google does comply with the GPL license, right? Does this mean they've given every one of their employees legal permission to t

This is a bit of a tangent, but Google does comply with the GPL license, right? Does this mean they've given every one of their employees legal permission to take a copy of the GPL code and its modifications home with them and distribute it as they please? The legal permissions apply to an employee receiving the code, yeah? After all, the employee is a person and I don't see any special rules about employees in the GPL license? Google might say that their employment contract supersedes the GPL in some way. But to the extent that their employment contract limits the GPL, to the same extent Google is not in compliance with the GPL license. It seems to me that any one of the hundreds of Google employees could just walk off with the modifications and sell them or release them however they choose. All legal. It would be an action Google has explicitly given them permission to do in legal writ. (I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. This is just my limited knowledge of the law and a bit of logical thinking.)

knorker 3y ago
Interesting legal theory. I'd love to hear a lawyer reply. Maybe the counter argument is that the employee isn't using the software. The business is. I've heard people have the legal theory that because there's no explicit copyright reassignment in their contract, they actually own the code they write as employees. Somehow I doubt that'll fly.
- Buttons840 3y ago
  GPL applies to anyone obtaining a copy I believe.
  - knorker 3y ago
    GPL is decades old. The fact that this has never happened makes me think you're wrong. And as another reply you got said, GNU also thinks you're wrong.
  - PeterisP 3y ago
    GPL should apply to anyone legally being given a copy, as the giver may be required to sublicence it under the GPL in order to be permitted to distribute that copy. If you simply 'find' a copy, GPL doesn't necessarily apply. And employees in most circumstances are not legally 'given a copy' - just as if the employer hands them a wrench to work with, that doesn't become the employee's wrench, and that applies to all kinds of copyright issues, any prohibitions to sublicensing don't prevent the product being used by employees because it's never licensed to them, etc.
    - Buttons840 3y ago
      Yes. It sounds like your logic matches the law better than mine.
dekhn 3y ago
Google uses GPL-licensed software in their products, entire projects are checked into the monorepo (only one version of any software at a time, though). If you're a Googler working on a personal project and you accept that Google owns it (controversial), then you would just use GPL software the normal way any developer would. If you're a Googler working on a work project, then you compile and link it into your application. If you wanted to modify GPL software, you'd sign the CLA for the project and send them patches. I did not see anything that would suggest Google was not complying with GPL. We were advised to not make new projects that used GPL, as copyleft and the license are challenging to understand compared to the relatively straightfowrad BSD, MIT, and Apache licenses.
- Buttons840 3y ago
  Does Google make their GPL modifications available? If so, my argument does not apply to Google, but may apply to other big tech companies. I mentioned Google only as an example--a place holder for any big tech company. It seems any company that hosts modified GPL code can't stop their employees from just walking off with it and selling it.
  - dekhn 3y ago
    No, if you modify GPL code at Google you would upstream the changes. Not sure why you're so concerned by this use case, it doesn't seem particularly important.
  - kube-system 3y ago
    > It seems any company that hosts modified GPL code can't stop their employees from just walking off with it and selling it. Sure they can, just don't distribute the code. The company holds the copyright to all code the employee wrote, if the employee took the code, they'd be violating their employer's copyright.
josephcsible 3y ago
That's answered in the GPL FAQ: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#InternalDistribution https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#InternalDistrib...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
PeterisP 3y ago
In general, no, if the employee is simply working on the code as part of the company, that does not count as distributing the code to the employee (unless the company explicitly did so). See the GNU FAQ on this - https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#InternalDistribution https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#InternalDistrib... - and slightly more elaboration at https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/10459/ https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/10459/
kube-system 3y ago
When regarding work done for hire, copyright generally considers the employee and the company to be the same thing.

knorker 3y ago

Interesting legal theory. I'd love to hear a lawyer reply. Maybe the counter argument is that the employee isn't using the software. The business is. I've heard people have the legal theory that because there's no explicit copyright reassignment in their contract, they actually own the code they write as employees. Somehow I doubt that'll fly.

Buttons840 3y ago
GPL applies to anyone obtaining a copy I believe.
- knorker 3y ago
  GPL is decades old. The fact that this has never happened makes me think you're wrong. And as another reply you got said, GNU also thinks you're wrong.
- PeterisP 3y ago
  GPL should apply to anyone legally being given a copy, as the giver may be required to sublicence it under the GPL in order to be permitted to distribute that copy. If you simply 'find' a copy, GPL doesn't necessarily apply. And employees in most circumstances are not legally 'given a copy' - just as if the employer hands them a wrench to work with, that doesn't become the employee's wrench, and that applies to all kinds of copyright issues, any prohibitions to sublicensing don't prevent the product being used by employees because it's never licensed to them, etc.
  - Buttons840 3y ago
    Yes. It sounds like your logic matches the law better than mine.

dekhn 3y ago

Google uses GPL-licensed software in their products, entire projects are checked into the monorepo (only one version of any software at a time, though). If you're a Googler working on a personal project and you accept that Google owns it (controversial), then you would just use GPL software the normal way any developer would. If you're a Googler working on a work project, then you compile and link it into your application. If you wanted to modify GPL software, you'd sign the CLA for the project and send them patches. I did not see anything that would suggest Google was not complying with GPL. We were advised to not make new projects that used GPL, as copyleft and the license are challenging to understand compared to the relatively straightfowrad BSD, MIT, and Apache licenses.

Buttons840 3y ago
Does Google make their GPL modifications available? If so, my argument does not apply to Google, but may apply to other big tech companies. I mentioned Google only as an example--a place holder for any big tech company. It seems any company that hosts modified GPL code can't stop their employees from just walking off with it and selling it.
- dekhn 3y ago
  No, if you modify GPL code at Google you would upstream the changes. Not sure why you're so concerned by this use case, it doesn't seem particularly important.
- kube-system 3y ago
  > It seems any company that hosts modified GPL code can't stop their employees from just walking off with it and selling it. Sure they can, just don't distribute the code. The company holds the copyright to all code the employee wrote, if the employee took the code, they'd be violating their employer's copyright.

josephcsible 3y ago

That's answered in the GPL FAQ: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#InternalDistribution https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#InternalDistrib...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

PeterisP 3y ago

In general, no, if the employee is simply working on the code as part of the company, that does not count as distributing the code to the employee (unless the company explicitly did so). See the GNU FAQ on this - https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#InternalDistribution https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#InternalDistrib... - and slightly more elaboration at https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/10459/ https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/10459/

kube-system 3y ago

When regarding work done for hire, copyright generally considers the employee and the company to be the same thing.