9 ms·

Flagged because article completely misunderstands how GPL works. GPL doesn't apply if you modify source-code to use internally, it only applies if you distribut

by ig1 13y ago

Flagged because article completely misunderstands how GPL works. GPL doesn't apply if you modify source-code to use internally, it only applies if you distribute it externally to third party users. [GPL not mentioned in article; my recollection from the original court documents is that the code was largely LGPL and GPL code]

ntakasaki 13y ago
I believe the article didn't imply steal in the legal sense, but rather in the moral sense of not contributing changes back and assuming ownership. I also see no mention of the GPL, only open source. So the license could've been BSD or MPL etc. Also this part might be illegal: >Later, at his trial, his lawyer flashed two pages of computer code: the original, with its open source license on top, and a replica, with the open source license stripped off and replaced by the Goldman Sachs license.
- zanny 13y ago
  The latter is obviously illegal, but I am an advocate of the GPL and don't take issue with someone extending GPLed code for internal use and not releasing their changes. The point is to maintain user freedom of software, and if the users are the company itself modifying it and never distributing it to someone without source access, even if they never make it publicly available, that is still ethical. I'd like them to share the information they create, but I think it steps on others rights if you start trying to force disclosure of information creation.
pmorici 13y ago
That's not inherently true of open source and I didn't see where the article singled out a specific license. There are several variants of GPL the AGPL has clauses that say you still have to provide source in cases short of distribution of the software itself.
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  Yes but AGPL is rarely used, the vast majority of FOSS uses GPL or a less restrictive license...
EGreg 13y ago
I've wondered about this. Doesn't your non-disclosure and nob compete contract with your employees conflict with your organization's "distribution" of open source code to the employees? They should be able to do WHATEVER THEY WANT with it under the license. Or does GPL somehow handle "internally" vs "externally"?
- HeyLaughingBoy 13y ago
  No conflict. You own your changes to GPL code unless you distribute that software to others. Only then do you need to distribute the source of your changes.
  - EGreg 13y ago
    But you the individual shouldnt be able to force another individual - a contractor, say - to restrict their freedom in using this free software, even though they are working for you. Right?
    - HeyLaughingBoy 13y ago
      Depends on exactly what you mean. Let's say that I'm employing you to write a trading platform. You research the field, find some OSS that can serve as a base to work from and modify it to my specs. I own the modified code and can report you to the DA if you take it and try to sell it somewhere else. Now if instead, you just take the original OSS you found, and the knowledge you gained working from me and go somewhere else to build a trading platform based on that original source, I have no case against you (assuming you aren't using my trade secrets) since you haven't taken anything I own. Does that help?
      - mullingitover 13y ago
        > I own the modified code and can report you to the DA if you take it and try to sell it somewhere else. How does this work with the original copyrighted code? If I take 10k lines of an open source project, tack on an echo or a comment or some nonsense, do I suddenly get to claim ownership of the rest of the code? It would make sense that you could own the delta, but you should only own your delta, not the original code.
armored 13y ago
According to the article Goldman deleted the existing license and replaced it with their own. Probably a violation of most licenses.
- matt_heimer 13y ago
  If the application or source code is distributed then sometimes removing the license would be a violation. But most open source licenses allow you to make private forks that you keep private. If that is your desire then changing out the license disclaimer to say "Some or all of this code is the property of X, do not distribute under any circumstance" actually makes a lot of sense. If the original license was left in place it would be easy to think that the files in the private fork where publicly distributed. Obviously they don't have permission to change the actual license on the originally public content.
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    It seems like a very bad idea to remove a copyright notice from a file. Suppose the next developer to see the file doesn't know its origin, then incorporates it into a product that is distributed.

by ig1 13y ago

ntakasaki 13y ago

I believe the article didn't imply steal in the legal sense, but rather in the moral sense of not contributing changes back and assuming ownership. I also see no mention of the GPL, only open source. So the license could've been BSD or MPL etc. Also this part might be illegal: >Later, at his trial, his lawyer flashed two pages of computer code: the original, with its open source license on top, and a replica, with the open source license stripped off and replaced by the Goldman Sachs license.

zanny 13y ago
The latter is obviously illegal, but I am an advocate of the GPL and don't take issue with someone extending GPLed code for internal use and not releasing their changes. The point is to maintain user freedom of software, and if the users are the company itself modifying it and never distributing it to someone without source access, even if they never make it publicly available, that is still ethical. I'd like them to share the information they create, but I think it steps on others rights if you start trying to force disclosure of information creation.

pmorici 13y ago

That's not inherently true of open source and I didn't see where the article singled out a specific license. There are several variants of GPL the AGPL has clauses that say you still have to provide source in cases short of distribution of the software itself.

Mikeb85 13y ago
Yes but AGPL is rarely used, the vast majority of FOSS uses GPL or a less restrictive license...

EGreg 13y ago

I've wondered about this. Doesn't your non-disclosure and nob compete contract with your employees conflict with your organization's "distribution" of open source code to the employees? They should be able to do WHATEVER THEY WANT with it under the license. Or does GPL somehow handle "internally" vs "externally"?

HeyLaughingBoy 13y ago
No conflict. You own your changes to GPL code unless you distribute that software to others. Only then do you need to distribute the source of your changes.
- EGreg 13y ago
  But you the individual shouldnt be able to force another individual - a contractor, say - to restrict their freedom in using this free software, even though they are working for you. Right?
  - HeyLaughingBoy 13y ago
    Depends on exactly what you mean. Let's say that I'm employing you to write a trading platform. You research the field, find some OSS that can serve as a base to work from and modify it to my specs. I own the modified code and can report you to the DA if you take it and try to sell it somewhere else. Now if instead, you just take the original OSS you found, and the knowledge you gained working from me and go somewhere else to build a trading platform based on that original source, I have no case against you (assuming you aren't using my trade secrets) since you haven't taken anything I own. Does that help?
    - mullingitover 13y ago
      > I own the modified code and can report you to the DA if you take it and try to sell it somewhere else. How does this work with the original copyrighted code? If I take 10k lines of an open source project, tack on an echo or a comment or some nonsense, do I suddenly get to claim ownership of the rest of the code? It would make sense that you could own the delta, but you should only own your delta, not the original code.

armored 13y ago

According to the article Goldman deleted the existing license and replaced it with their own. Probably a violation of most licenses.

matt_heimer 13y ago
If the application or source code is distributed then sometimes removing the license would be a violation. But most open source licenses allow you to make private forks that you keep private. If that is your desire then changing out the license disclaimer to say "Some or all of this code is the property of X, do not distribute under any circumstance" actually makes a lot of sense. If the original license was left in place it would be easy to think that the files in the private fork where publicly distributed. Obviously they don't have permission to change the actual license on the originally public content.
- nitrogen 13y ago
  It seems like a very bad idea to remove a copyright notice from a file. Suppose the next developer to see the file doesn't know its origin, then incorporates it into a product that is distributed.