5 ms·

> (Which Goldman illegally prohibited him from releasing, while license explicitly said if you modify it for commercial product you must make your contributions

> (Which Goldman illegally prohibited him from releasing, while license explicitly said if you modify it for commercial product you must make your contributions public) I don't know the exact details of the case, but just to clarify: under the GPL, you don't have to release your changes if you aren't distributing that commercial product. e.g., If he modified it for in-house use, there is, AFAIK, no legal obligation to release those modifications (under the GPL).

dllthomas 13y ago
If he modified it for his own use, then that's clearly the case. If he modified it for the use of others within Goldman, they might have conceivably had a claim to a copy of the source under the GPL; he would not. I'm not entirely sure of that, or of whether employment contracts &c could limit that. For that matter, I'm not entirely sure what the answer should be there.
- bmm6o 13y ago
  I think an internal user could easily be persuaded not to demand the source code.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    In the typical case, probably, but if you have a large organization you could easily wind up with one exception. What rights these people do and don't have still seems important.
    - bmm6o 13y ago
      One exception who invited legal trouble for the organization as a matter of some kind of principle would likely find himself no longer a member of the organization. In the best-case scenario, this person gets to see the source code for an internal tool. Who exactly is going to fund this legal battle?
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        What about one exception who was already on the way out? Or what about one exception who was engaged in industrial espionage? I'm just saying if you're just relying on employees not exercising rights they have - after which something you've been trying to prevent distribution of can be freely distributed - your situation is somewhat fragile.
      - pyre 13y ago
        Apparently the company itself if he or she is an officer of the company (as in this case). :P

dllthomas 13y ago

If he modified it for his own use, then that's clearly the case. If he modified it for the use of others within Goldman, they might have conceivably had a claim to a copy of the source under the GPL; he would not. I'm not entirely sure of that, or of whether employment contracts &c could limit that. For that matter, I'm not entirely sure what the answer should be there.

bmm6o 13y ago
I think an internal user could easily be persuaded not to demand the source code.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  In the typical case, probably, but if you have a large organization you could easily wind up with one exception. What rights these people do and don't have still seems important.
  - bmm6o 13y ago
    One exception who invited legal trouble for the organization as a matter of some kind of principle would likely find himself no longer a member of the organization. In the best-case scenario, this person gets to see the source code for an internal tool. Who exactly is going to fund this legal battle?
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      What about one exception who was already on the way out? Or what about one exception who was engaged in industrial espionage? I'm just saying if you're just relying on employees not exercising rights they have - after which something you've been trying to prevent distribution of can be freely distributed - your situation is somewhat fragile.
    - pyre 13y ago
      Apparently the company itself if he or she is an officer of the company (as in this case). :P