4 ms·
Licenses grant freedoms to do things that you would not otherwise be allowed to do. Here, the GPL means that someone with copyright grants a freedom (the freed
by chalst 13y ago
Licenses grant freedoms to do things that you would not otherwise be allowed to do. Here, the GPL means that someone with copyright grants a freedom (the freedom to change and redistribute). But these freedoms can only be granted by people who are in a position to say who gets to exercise those rights.
That code might come with a GPL, but the license it grants is worthless, because the people who put it there have no connection to the copyright holders.
- Dylan16807 13y agoI think Wisty was responding to the part where the crazy man claimed the driver code was originally GPL internally before being changed.
- read_again 13y agoWhat chalst probably meant is that the fact that the code was orginally GPL doesn't make any illegal obtention of the code legal. If you keep code you wrote on your computer with a GPL attached, and someone breaks in and find it, he won't have the right to use it afterwards thanks to GPL. The GPL defines the rights offered to "clients" by the "vendor", and how these rights are granted. Illegal obtention of the code is not one of the granting processes defined by the GPL. Therefore, putting the GPL on that code is meaningless, whether it were GPLed initially or not.
- Dylan16807 13y agoIsn't the GPL unilateral? If something is actually under the GPL, it shouldn't matter how it was obtained.
- Nursie 13y agoI don't think so, no. The GPL talks about a lot of transference of rights that take place during the act of distribution. If one does not have those rights to start with (the code was stolen, for instance) then it wouldn't apply.
- adamzochowski 13y agoActually it matters. Original code is GPL. I make modifications. These modifications are mine. Someone stealing my modifications is performing IP theft. Now, GPL stipulates when I have to release my modifications. I only have to release my patches when GPLv2: I distribute software to clients/users. In GPLv3 it is when clients/users use my software (aka: webservices).
- Dylan16807 13y agoThat's a completely different issue from what I'm talking about. You're talking about modifications that aren't yet/ever released under the GPL. I'm asking what happens if it's already completely GPL, including modifications, and it gets leaked.
- foobarbazqux 13y agoNothing happens. The GPL is built on top of copyright. You cannot license code that you do not have copyright permission for under the GPL.
- Dylan16807 13y agoWow, this conversation sure is going in circles. >I think Wisty was responding to the part where the crazy man claimed the driver code was originally GPL internally before being changed. As in, IF Samsung put version 1 under GPL, owning the copyright, on purpose, but they were keeping it hidden and someone snuck it out, would it be okay to use?
- foobarbazqux 13y agoNo, because the person who snuck it out didn't have copyright permission from the company. Employees at most corporations don't own the code they write. If this were legal, then it would also be legal for an outsider to hack Samsung and release their code under the GPL. For licensing purposes, employees at companies do not have GPL code they are working on distributed to them by the company; they are part of the company.