Slashdot Mirror
Clash of the GPL and Other IP Agreements?
Daimaou asks: "A situation I'm involved in at work has raised some questions regarding the GPL vs. IP agreements. When I started working for my employer several years ago I signed an IP agreement that states anything I think while working for them is theirs, as well as anything I've ever thought in the past if it enters their building; dumb, but I needed a job." To make a long story short: Daimaou wrote some code derived from GPLed sources. Now his company wants to take control over what he's written. IP agreements aside, this sounds like a GPL violation since the company's IP can't override IP already established by the original GPLed code. Daimaou also says the company is trying to patent at least some of the code. Is there anything Daimaou, or anyone else for that matter, can do to get the company to cut short their plans and play fair with IP that obviously doesn't belong entirely to them?
"About a year and a half ago, I brought in some source code that I had worked on prior to working here; after receiving verbal OKs that the code would remain mine.
My code was derived from code I got from IBM's Developer Works website and also ActiveState's website; all of which was released under the GPL. I made a lot of additions to the software of my own, but the parts from the above sources were integral pieces and without them, my code wouldn't work.
Now, my employer is trying to lay claim to this software and has filed at least one patent on it that I know of. They have also distributed it but refuse to make the source public. They claim that because of my IP agreement, they have full rights to this source code.
I would like to hear what other readers think and perhaps get some suggested courses of action from people who are smarter with regards to law and the GPL than I am."
My code was derived from code I got from IBM's Developer Works website and also ActiveState's website; all of which was released under the GPL. I made a lot of additions to the software of my own, but the parts from the above sources were integral pieces and without them, my code wouldn't work.
Now, my employer is trying to lay claim to this software and has filed at least one patent on it that I know of. They have also distributed it but refuse to make the source public. They claim that because of my IP agreement, they have full rights to this source code.
I would like to hear what other readers think and perhaps get some suggested courses of action from people who are smarter with regards to law and the GPL than I am."
anonymously tip off http://www.gpl-violations.org/?
vodka, straight up, thank you!
The single best thing you can do is to find a good lawyer. Although you may personally be in violation of the GPL since it was your actions that brought about the violation (but see respondeat superior for why only your company can be sued for this, and not you personally), you may also have a claim that the oral agreement you entered into superseded your written IP agreement, or at least estopped your employer from violating the oral agreement and, by extension, the GPL.
But hire a lawyer. I am not a lawyer, nor is this legal advice. I just know what I know, and what I know is that a good lawyer will spot at least the things I've mentioned and probably more, and more importantly will know how to apply these ideas to cover your ass and, hopefully, keep your code GPLed.
Good luck, and again: hire a lawyer.
Whoops let me clarify:
Like I said, If Daimaou wrote the code prior to the IP agreement than the code isn't his to release to the company. The GPL license holders own it.
If Daimaou wrote the code after signing the IP agreement than he couldn't release code to GPL as he isn't the owner. The company owns that portion of the code; therefore Daimaou released the code illegally. Daimaou could potentially be held liable for any damages the company could prove due to the IP release. Furthermore, the code he introduced would have to be removed and possibly recoded. However, if the company wants to use any portion of the GPL code then said company is in violation of the original GPL'ed code.
The company can patent the new technology and can also decide to release the entire packaged software to GPL - these are the only two legal scenarios that can exist without rewriting the GPL code.
IANAL, but it seems pretty clear to me that you can only sign contracts that limit your own rights.
When you wrote derivative works from a GPL source, you did not gain ownership of the original code or even full patent rights to the code you wrote. The GPL remains in effect. If they argue that your contract gives them ownership, then that contract is illegal and invalid because the original authors (IBM's Developer Works & ActiveState and probably many others) were not party to the contract.
I cannot sign a valid contract, assigning ownership of assets I do not own. I mean I can sign one, but it has no legal standing. The contract and any patents derived from it, would simply be invalidated in the first court to see it.
Its not users who are broken, it's systems not taking account their likely behaviour and fixing it technically.
First off, IANAL.
The basic issue is that Daimaou doesn't have the *right* to sign over the code that he modified. When he modified code that was released under the GPL, he was bound by their license agreements. If he signed an agreement to turn over all past IP of his (I'm not sure of the legality of such an agreement), he either broke the law in signing the agreement or he did not turn over the IP; he has no right to void a license established by IBM.
The logic being used by his company is almost amusing. If they got an employee who had formerly worked at Microsoft on Windows, would they expect to be able to patent parts of Windows? Of course not - because when the person worked at Microsoft, their legal obligation was to turn over any IP that they develop to IBM. They had no right to the IP that they wrote. Neither does Daimaou have any right to code that he wrote that fell under the obligations of another party's license.
What his company is doing seems to be pretty darn clear cut to me. But, as mentioned, IANAL.
"Here's a fun fact: the moon has turned to blood!" -- Newscaster, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
Daimou has put his employer in a very difficult position here, by bringing into a commercial workplace GPL'ed code, and incorporating it into his work. With Daimou being an employee, his employer had the right to assume that it could use his work product in any way it saw fit with full ownership, absent a written agreement to the contrary (employee work within the scope of employment is considered a work made for hire under U.S. Copyright law). Further, from this article, it isn't clear that Daimou either notified, explained to or got the agreement of his employer to include GPL'ed code (which does, by the terms of the license, need to stay under the GPL) in his work. At some level, the GPL issue is a red herring (although it obviously affects the ability of the employer to keep the source code proprietary)--if Daimou had included code he'd written for some other previous employer, it would have caused similar problems.
At this point, Daimou's employer may (depending on the intricacies and particular facts of this situation, for which it would need the advice of its own lawyer) face a difficult decision: release under the GPL, or rebuild using non-GPL'ed code. Who pays for the rebuilding, and Daimou's role in the process (or at the company), are other questions to be determined. Moral of the story, folks: Never include any code or content subject to outside license restrictions (whether GPL or otherwise) in something done for your boss without getting the boss' informed consent! {Professor Jonathan Ezor, Director, Touro Law Center Institute for Business, Law and Technology}
I see you've bought the "GPL is viral" FUD. Daimaou's code is Daimaou's code. It may be non-functional without the surrounding GPL code, but it's his none the less.
If Daimaou wrote the code after signing the IP agreement than he couldn't release code to GPL as he isn't the owner. The company owns that portion of the code; therefore Daimaou released the code illegally. Daimaou could potentially be held liable for any damages the company could prove due to the IP release. Furthermore, the code he introduced would have to be removed and possibly recoded. However, if the company wants to use any portion of the GPL code then said company is in violation of the original GPL'ed code.
Daimaou didn't release the code at all, let alone illegally. As long as modifications stay within the "legal entity" they are not being redistributed according to the GPL, so the company is free to use the software all it wants. The GPL explicitly states "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted..." (emphasis mine). They can even make modifications and use the modifications internally. They only have to GPL the modifications if they make them available to others, along with the original GPL code.
The company can patent the new technology and can also decide to release the entire packaged software to GPL - these are the only two legal scenarios that can exist without rewriting the GPL code.
The company can patent technology used in the code, but in order to distribute it under the GPL it must be made available, at least for GPL purposes, under a royalty free, fully re-distributable license which (mostly) defeats the purpose of patenting it.
Acutally it is more subtle than that. Diamanou has the absolute right to sign over his rights to the code he wrote. This is standard ownership agreement. He, of course, does not posess the right to sign over rights belonging to others, nor does the company have the right to assert ownership of those parts that are owned by third parties. Ownership of his rights aren't bound by the GPL, only distribution is. The current owner of the rights, whomever it might be, however is bound by the GPL (or a license that's similar enough to it to be compatable, eg they could distribute it under the GPL but also provide a warantee as an extra cost option) if they distribute the code.
So Diamanou broke no laws here. He didn't say he signed over other people's rights.
Please don't get license and rights confused. The GPL is a license, but does not fundamentally affect copyright of those parts added to it. That copyright, under international treaty, belongs to the person who wrote it. Since this a work with other people's intellectual property in it, that IP must be licensed, and presently is licensed under the GPL (unless the company has gone back to the original authors and gotten a copy under a different license).
Daimou has indicated that the manager led him to understand the code would remain his, providing such consent, so do emphasize: "...in WRITING."
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.