5 ms·

Read the GPL carefully, very carefully... An organisation counts the same as an individual, and as long as code stays within the organization that doesn't coun

by Mikeb85 13y ago

Read the GPL carefully, very carefully... An organisation counts the same as an individual, and as long as code stays within the organization that doesn't count as 'distribution', and Goldman Sachs is under no obligation to release the code. They even retain the rights to prevent the code being released. It's easy to hate on Goldman Sachs for many things, but in this case they didn't violate the GPL, and Aleynikov did commit a crime.

nwmcsween 13y ago
Ah but you cannot change the copyright of source to something else that you want, also I'm pretty sure you cannot distribute it to subsidiaries as I'm sure was done.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- jeremyjh 13y ago
  How is that you have become sure of these things?
  - Natsu 13y ago
    It's not a good idea to remove anyone's copyright notices. See, e.g., http://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2013/08/05/infringing-copyright-think-twice-before-removing-the-copyright-notice-it-could-be-deemed-copyright-management-information-under-the-dmca/ http://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2013/08/05/infringing-copyr...
    - jeremyjh 13y ago
      I didn't say that it was. I'm questioning the GP's statement that he is sure this code was shared with subsidiaries - how is that possible?
      - nwmcsween 13y ago
        Do you think the same people / organization that worked on the code administered the systems the resulting binary ran on? I highly doubt it.
      - Natsu 13y ago
        I would think that would seem likely, though I can't see how we could be certain without further data.
- beejiu 13y ago
  What do you mean? Goldman Sachs would have owned the copyright, not the employee. (It gets a little more complicated for contractors.) And even if you distributed to a subsidiary, you can simply provide the code to the subsidiary, too. That's fully within the license terms of the GPL.
  - Yaa101 13y ago
    You cannot change a copyright notice of a GPL source, GPL allows you to distribute, it even encouridge you, but nothing in the law allows you to change copyright claims. GPL follows copyright laws to the letter, that is it's strength. Forging copyright notices is a form of deceit and if I am right copyright laws will say that it's theft.
    - Natsu 13y ago
      I don't know about calling it theft, but some courts have made it into a DMCA violation, though there is disagreement on that point.
    - Mikeb85 13y ago
      The copyright belongs to you as long as you don't convey the program. GS didn't convey it, so it belongs to them. https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
      - camperman 13y ago
        Nonsense. The copyright belongs to the copyright holder. I know GS like to steal every fucking thing in sight but claiming copyright on a piece of Free Software just because its received a copy is a new low.
      - rdtsc 13y ago
        Wait I think we are getting confused here. What code are we talking about here. Copyright of code belongs to the author of the code, or a company that employs him. If they took say GCC and then replace copyright notices on it, it doesn't become their code, they are using it under a license from the original authors. Replacing a header in a file doesn't magically give you complete control and copyright over it. That would be silly and it would nullify most of the open source software licenses.
vdaniuk 13y ago
I remember you. You are the one who was defending Eich and then HFT and now you are defending Goldman Sachs. You state in your profile that you are a student of philosophy. As a person who studies philosophy too, I am really curious, how would you describe your philosophical views?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  I believe that individuals are allowed to hold private opinions (like Eich), and we as a society have decided as much. As for HFT and Goldman Sachs, people are simply bashing based on jealousy of more successful individuals in a different sector, without actually investigating the topic. Like here, where apparently many don't actually read the GPL. As for philosophy, that's a topic in itself, but let's just put it this way - I had one foot inside the door of a monastery (figuratively), instead chose a different path. Regardless, in worldly matters I prefer a rational approach to knee jerk sentimentality and sensationalism..
  - butterfi 13y ago
    "...simply bashing based on jealousy of more successful individuals in a different sector..." Or people are tired of getting ripped off by white-collar criminals who never get prosecuted. Goldman Sach's reputation is one they earned. I'm not saying Goldman Sach's is guilty in this particular situation, but their past behavior warrants keeping a close eye on them.
    - Mikeb85 13y ago
      Criminality is for the justice system to decide. Seriously though, almost all posts about the financial sector here go something like: "They're overpaid, they rip people off, why don't I make as much money since programming is so difficult and requires so much education, etc...". Yet somehow people on HN forget where funding for start-ups comes from... They benefit from the system yet complain about it all the time.
to3m 13y ago
Are you thinking of one of the FAQ entries? http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#GP... A strange exception - somewhat at odds with the GPL's goals, surely? - but it doesn't seem to follow from the text of the GPL itself.
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  No, I'm talking about the licence. > Each licensee is addressed as “you”. “Licensees” and “recipients” may be individuals or organizations. > To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying. > All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. > You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
  - to3m 13y ago
    Thanks. This text is not in GPL v2 (don't ask me why I wasn't looking at v3, I suppose in my mind that's still "the new one that nobody seems to be using yet").

by Mikeb85 13y ago

nwmcsween 13y ago

Ah but you cannot change the copyright of source to something else that you want, also I'm pretty sure you cannot distribute it to subsidiaries as I'm sure was done.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jeremyjh 13y ago
How is that you have become sure of these things?
- Natsu 13y ago
  It's not a good idea to remove anyone's copyright notices. See, e.g., http://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2013/08/05/infringing-copyright-think-twice-before-removing-the-copyright-notice-it-could-be-deemed-copyright-management-information-under-the-dmca/ http://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2013/08/05/infringing-copyr...
  - jeremyjh 13y ago
    I didn't say that it was. I'm questioning the GP's statement that he is sure this code was shared with subsidiaries - how is that possible?
    - nwmcsween 13y ago
      Do you think the same people / organization that worked on the code administered the systems the resulting binary ran on? I highly doubt it.
    - Natsu 13y ago
      I would think that would seem likely, though I can't see how we could be certain without further data.
beejiu 13y ago
What do you mean? Goldman Sachs would have owned the copyright, not the employee. (It gets a little more complicated for contractors.) And even if you distributed to a subsidiary, you can simply provide the code to the subsidiary, too. That's fully within the license terms of the GPL.
- Yaa101 13y ago
  You cannot change a copyright notice of a GPL source, GPL allows you to distribute, it even encouridge you, but nothing in the law allows you to change copyright claims. GPL follows copyright laws to the letter, that is it's strength. Forging copyright notices is a form of deceit and if I am right copyright laws will say that it's theft.
  - Natsu 13y ago
    I don't know about calling it theft, but some courts have made it into a DMCA violation, though there is disagreement on that point.
  - Mikeb85 13y ago
    The copyright belongs to you as long as you don't convey the program. GS didn't convey it, so it belongs to them. https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
    - camperman 13y ago
      Nonsense. The copyright belongs to the copyright holder. I know GS like to steal every fucking thing in sight but claiming copyright on a piece of Free Software just because its received a copy is a new low.
    - rdtsc 13y ago
      Wait I think we are getting confused here. What code are we talking about here. Copyright of code belongs to the author of the code, or a company that employs him. If they took say GCC and then replace copyright notices on it, it doesn't become their code, they are using it under a license from the original authors. Replacing a header in a file doesn't magically give you complete control and copyright over it. That would be silly and it would nullify most of the open source software licenses.

vdaniuk 13y ago

I remember you. You are the one who was defending Eich and then HFT and now you are defending Goldman Sachs. You state in your profile that you are a student of philosophy. As a person who studies philosophy too, I am really curious, how would you describe your philosophical views?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
Mikeb85 13y ago
I believe that individuals are allowed to hold private opinions (like Eich), and we as a society have decided as much. As for HFT and Goldman Sachs, people are simply bashing based on jealousy of more successful individuals in a different sector, without actually investigating the topic. Like here, where apparently many don't actually read the GPL. As for philosophy, that's a topic in itself, but let's just put it this way - I had one foot inside the door of a monastery (figuratively), instead chose a different path. Regardless, in worldly matters I prefer a rational approach to knee jerk sentimentality and sensationalism..
- butterfi 13y ago
  "...simply bashing based on jealousy of more successful individuals in a different sector..." Or people are tired of getting ripped off by white-collar criminals who never get prosecuted. Goldman Sach's reputation is one they earned. I'm not saying Goldman Sach's is guilty in this particular situation, but their past behavior warrants keeping a close eye on them.
  - Mikeb85 13y ago
    Criminality is for the justice system to decide. Seriously though, almost all posts about the financial sector here go something like: "They're overpaid, they rip people off, why don't I make as much money since programming is so difficult and requires so much education, etc...". Yet somehow people on HN forget where funding for start-ups comes from... They benefit from the system yet complain about it all the time.

to3m 13y ago

Are you thinking of one of the FAQ entries? http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#GP... A strange exception - somewhat at odds with the GPL's goals, surely? - but it doesn't seem to follow from the text of the GPL itself.

Mikeb85 13y ago
No, I'm talking about the licence. > Each licensee is addressed as “you”. “Licensees” and “recipients” may be individuals or organizations. > To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying. > All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. > You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
- to3m 13y ago
  Thanks. This text is not in GPL v2 (don't ask me why I wasn't looking at v3, I suppose in my mind that's still "the new one that nobody seems to be using yet").