4 ms·

What I find interesting is that Aleynikov (and the sources I've read about him) claim the code was open source. The issue of Goldman making false claim to GPLed

What I find interesting is that Aleynikov (and the sources I've read about him) claim the code was open source. The issue of Goldman making false claim to GPLed or similarly licensed code hasn't come up. If the court ruled that modified GPLed code can't be taken by an exiting employee then that has a whole host of other implications.

rayiner 11y ago
The Second Circuit ruling expressly addressed that aspect: http://sunsteinlaw.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/2013_01_IP_Update_Aleynikov.pdf http://sunsteinlaw.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/2013_01... ("Aleynikov also transferred some open source software licensed for use by the public that was mixed in with Goldman's proprietary code. However, a substantially greater number of the uploaded files contained proprietary code than had open source software") (Page 5, Footnote 1)
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  Link appears to be broken.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    Fixed, thanks.
derekp7 11y ago
Well technically, any modifications you make to GPL code are still owned by your employer. Now if the modified code gets distributed by your employer, THEY are the ones that are under obligation to make the source available. But if they don't redistribute any of the code, then the GPL specifically allows them to keep the changes proprietary.
- current_call 11y ago
  Doesn't the code get distributed to the employees? How are they prevented from redistributing it?
Mikeb85 11y ago
This comes up over and over but GPL code is owned by the employer, not paid employees who work on it. If it never leaves GS' computers (or those of its employees), that's not considered 'distribution', and changes don't need to be released. It's all spelled out in the GPL.
murbard2 11y ago
No, he claimed he thought he was only uploading some open source code he had been working on (with approval) and that some proprietary firm code got thrown in the mix by mistake.
belorn 11y ago
GPL explicitly permits employers to add contractual rules to employees against copying of internal code.

rayiner 11y ago

The Second Circuit ruling expressly addressed that aspect: http://sunsteinlaw.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/2013_01_IP_Update_Aleynikov.pdf http://sunsteinlaw.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/2013_01... ("Aleynikov also transferred some open source software licensed for use by the public that was mixed in with Goldman's proprietary code. However, a substantially greater number of the uploaded files contained proprietary code than had open source software") (Page 5, Footnote 1)

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
Link appears to be broken.
- rayiner 11y ago
  Fixed, thanks.

derekp7 11y ago

Well technically, any modifications you make to GPL code are still owned by your employer. Now if the modified code gets distributed by your employer, THEY are the ones that are under obligation to make the source available. But if they don't redistribute any of the code, then the GPL specifically allows them to keep the changes proprietary.

current_call 11y ago
Doesn't the code get distributed to the employees? How are they prevented from redistributing it?

Mikeb85 11y ago

This comes up over and over but GPL code is owned by the employer, not paid employees who work on it. If it never leaves GS' computers (or those of its employees), that's not considered 'distribution', and changes don't need to be released. It's all spelled out in the GPL.

murbard2 11y ago

No, he claimed he thought he was only uploading some open source code he had been working on (with approval) and that some proprietary firm code got thrown in the mix by mistake.

belorn 11y ago

GPL explicitly permits employers to add contractual rules to employees against copying of internal code.