2 ms·
Goldman was actually violating the license terms of the open source software it had modified by not releasing it. I down-voted you because people keep saying t
by Amadou 13y ago
Goldman was actually violating the license terms of the open source software it had modified by not releasing it.
I down-voted you because people keep saying that and it is false.
The Vanity Fair article uses the qualifier "possibly" when talking about GS violating the licenses and that's because none of the major license families (BSD, GPL, MPL, etc) have a requirement to release modifications if the whole is not released outside the organization that made them. The Vanity Fair article does not say that the code was ever distributed out of Goldman.
http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2013/09/michael-lewis-goldman-sachs-programmer http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2013/09/michael-lewis-gol...
- btilly 13y agoAnd none of them have that requirement because distribution inside of an organization does not count as a distribution for the purpose of copyright law. (Though if you let people carry it out of the organization, that's a different story.)
- ghaff 13y agoThat was a point in the original Vanity Fair article that really caught my attention because it seemed very wrong the way it was stated. None of us know all the details but--based on what was written in that article--it sure doesn't sound like a license violation.