5 ms·

Actually it matters. Original code is GPL. I make modifications. These modifications are mine. Someone stealing my modifications is performing IP theft. Now,

Actually 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 ago
That'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 ago
  Nothing 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 ago
    Wow, 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 ago
      No, 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.
      - Dylan16807 13y ago
        In the hypothetical, Samsung intentionally put it under GPL. It is truly and legitimately licensed GPL, they're just not giving it to the public at this moment. I don't know how I can make it clearer.
        foobarbazqux 13y ago
        Something doesn't truly become GPL until it is distributed, because the license is a contract between licensor and licensee. Only someone with copyright permission can distribute code. Samsung didn't grant copyright permission to its employees, nor did it distribute GPL code to its employees. (In the hypothetical.)
        Dylan16807 13y ago
        So if I write a piece of software, burn it onto a hundred disks, put the disks in a nicely labeled basket for people to take, go to lunch, and people grab some, at what point does the license kick in? I find strange your statement that there is no license despite every file header (hypothetically) claiming a license, and this being authorized by the entire management chain.
        foobarbazqux 13y ago
        In the example with you putting the disks in a basket, you've intentionally made them available for people that are not your employees to take, so you're distributing them. The license kicks in when one is taken. It's analogous to downloading software. The point is that for a license to be binding it has to be offered willingly. If I sign a blank check and you steal it from me, filling out $1000 and your name, although you'll be able to cash it, you have no right to the money, and I can undo the action. The reason internal code is special is because the employees are not considered individuals to whom the company has distributed the software. Instead they are a part of the company. I identified some relevant questions in the GPL FAQ. I believe that the first one and third one are what you care about. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#StolenCopy https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#StolenCopy https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePo... https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistributi... https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributeSubsidiary https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributeSubsidia... I hope that helps. The FSF might respond if you write to them, it's worth a shot if you're still not convinced.
skore 13y ago
Complete and utter horseshit. What you're talking about in the last sentence is the Affero GPL. The GPL states and has always stated: If you modify code that is licensed as GPL and want to share it, the modified version needs to be GPL as well ("share alike"). But: Nobody forces you to release anything. If you don't release software, you don't need to make a license for it. If you want, you can license it as "Adam Zochowski Super License 5000". Frame it and put it on your wall, nobody gives a damn. The GPL only governs and can only govern what happens when you actually do release (GPLv3 uses the term "convey") software to other people. Sidenote: This post again confirms Stallmans rule of thumb that anybody using the utterly corrupt term "Intellectual Property" is either a moron or trying to mislead you.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  I wonder why people are voting you down. The GP is definitely confusing GPL with AGPL.
- read_again 13y ago
  GP wording was perhaps a bit awkward, but I don't think he meant that modifications had to be released unilaterally: He just indicated the difference between gplv2 and v3 in the situations when the licenses force the release of the modifications (ie. when distributing the program in non source form).

Dylan16807 13y ago

That'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 ago
Nothing 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 ago
  Wow, 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 ago
    No, 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.
    - Dylan16807 13y ago
      In the hypothetical, Samsung intentionally put it under GPL. It is truly and legitimately licensed GPL, they're just not giving it to the public at this moment. I don't know how I can make it clearer.
      - foobarbazqux 13y ago
        Something doesn't truly become GPL until it is distributed, because the license is a contract between licensor and licensee. Only someone with copyright permission can distribute code. Samsung didn't grant copyright permission to its employees, nor did it distribute GPL code to its employees. (In the hypothetical.)
        Dylan16807 13y ago
        So if I write a piece of software, burn it onto a hundred disks, put the disks in a nicely labeled basket for people to take, go to lunch, and people grab some, at what point does the license kick in? I find strange your statement that there is no license despite every file header (hypothetically) claiming a license, and this being authorized by the entire management chain.
        foobarbazqux 13y ago
        In the example with you putting the disks in a basket, you've intentionally made them available for people that are not your employees to take, so you're distributing them. The license kicks in when one is taken. It's analogous to downloading software. The point is that for a license to be binding it has to be offered willingly. If I sign a blank check and you steal it from me, filling out $1000 and your name, although you'll be able to cash it, you have no right to the money, and I can undo the action. The reason internal code is special is because the employees are not considered individuals to whom the company has distributed the software. Instead they are a part of the company. I identified some relevant questions in the GPL FAQ. I believe that the first one and third one are what you care about. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#StolenCopy https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#StolenCopy https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePo... https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistributi... https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributeSubsidiary https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributeSubsidia... I hope that helps. The FSF might respond if you write to them, it's worth a shot if you're still not convinced.

skore 13y ago

Complete and utter horseshit. What you're talking about in the last sentence is the Affero GPL. The GPL states and has always stated: If you modify code that is licensed as GPL and want to share it, the modified version needs to be GPL as well ("share alike"). But: Nobody forces you to release anything. If you don't release software, you don't need to make a license for it. If you want, you can license it as "Adam Zochowski Super License 5000". Frame it and put it on your wall, nobody gives a damn. The GPL only governs and can only govern what happens when you actually do release (GPLv3 uses the term "convey") software to other people. Sidenote: This post again confirms Stallmans rule of thumb that anybody using the utterly corrupt term "Intellectual Property" is either a moron or trying to mislead you.

Dylan16807 13y ago
I wonder why people are voting you down. The GP is definitely confusing GPL with AGPL.
read_again 13y ago
GP wording was perhaps a bit awkward, but I don't think he meant that modifications had to be released unilaterally: He just indicated the difference between gplv2 and v3 in the situations when the licenses force the release of the modifications (ie. when distributing the program in non source form).