Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is hilarious. > > http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/2005-May/000260.html > (Help needed dealing with ex-employer violating GPL)
Well, the guy is totally confused. Of course the code he wrote is likely owned by the company that paid him for writing it. And of course the scripts don't come magically under the GPL. The complete product, of course, can't be distributed ignoring the GPL. Whether the scripts have to be considered integral part or just an aggregation is a different question, and this will affect whether the company _has_ to choose the GPL for the scripts as well (if they prefer to avoid getting sued by the netfilter authors), or are more free in their choice of license. In all cases, the GPL does not affect ownership of the code at all. It only affects in which form and manner the complete product may or may not be distributed. From what he writes, it seems plausible that his former employer might be in violation of the GPL, but that has nothing to do at all with the claims between him and the company, and he should get competent legal advice as fast as he can. While the question of GPL compliance might cause his company independent trouble, it is completely irrelevant to his case. Even if the company chose to release the complete code under the GPL eventually, he is _not_ allowed to work with it (if it was contract work) unless he received a copy of it via a regular distribution channel. If he independently rewrote it, then he should make sure that no no-compete clause in the contracts blocks him from doing that. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
