D&C GLug - Home Page

[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]

Re: [LUG] The dangers of proprietary

 

On 5 Aug 2013, at 23:19, James Kilty <james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> what I find the most disturbing about the article is that goldman sachs allegedly 
> removes the license headers from the source code and replaces it with their 
> proprietary license. Thus they void all rights to the open source code in the 
> first place.

GS are allowed to make this change since for LGPL essentially all that matters is 
that the method of re-distribution is compliant and make it explicit what happened 
when redistributing. You are assuming it is a proprietary license, I suspect it is 
simply standard application copyright.

> Also if the open source code was GPL'd (which the article suggests), then it 
> becomes questionable whether or not Goldman Sachs were even legally permitted to 
> use the source code.

The more in-depth articles suggest LGPL. Either way it does look like the developer 
was copying material which was copyright GS.

In that sense the discussion of free licences is a distraction.As long as GS comply 
with redistribution rules (and it sounds like they redistribute nothing, so they 
do), then they are free to incorporate GPL and LGPL code as they like. Their own 
modifications remain theirs.

Thus we appear to have simple case of programmer taking source code with him which 
belongs to his employer. That it is interspersed with free software doesn't change 
anything here.

The sentence sounds harsh, but without the details and both sides of the story it is 
hard to say. 

I suspect the biggest mistake was the early actions - don't waive your right to 
legal representation - don't talk to the police assuming it'll all get cleared up 
quickly if you are accused of something, particularly if you are guilty, or have 
done anything the least bit doubtful.

One I've not seen yet is an employee distributing modified code to comply with GPL 
where it is required (eg where they sell redistribute modified code) against an 
employers wishes. I suspect the outcome would be much the same but is ethically a 
bit trickier.
-- 
The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list
FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq