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."
This is actually a fairly clear cut situation. If your code is a derivative of GPLed code, then the derivative is under the GPL, regardless of any other agreements. Your company can either distribute the derived code or not. If they distribute it, they *must* obey the GPL.
If it were any other way, contract law would crumble. Imagine a world where some random Contract X (in this case, your IP agreement) can arbitrarily change the terms and conditions of some other random Contract Y (the GPLed code). A logical extension of this absurdity is that I could then write a contract with you that *somehow* changed a contract between two other, unrelated parties. The law doesn't work that way, no matter how much your Work Overlords would wish otherwise.
Even if we were, we could not give useful advice without full details.
Talk to a lawyer.
You can send your company's lawyer a copy of "their" code, the GPL'd code from which you derived "their code", and the GPL. You can ask the lawyer to write you an opinion stating that you are protected from the copyright owner of the GPL'd code you use making any claims against your company. And you can remember, while looking for your next job after they fire you, that you shouldn't both sign away rights, and expect to use them, when working for a bunch of thieving assholes.
--
make install -not war
Yeah, the company does have copyrights to the modifications Daimaou made, and any of those modifications, if separable in themselves such that no GPL-derivativeness remains, could be licensed however the company desires, but as long as the two are one, it must be licensed by GPL rules.
Yes, the employer owns the new code. However, the employer is prohibited from distributing that code under any license other than the GPL unless the code is independent of other GPL code not owned by said employer.
The GPL has nothing to do with copyright ownership. Hence, projects like the Linux kernel are owned by the many different contributers. This is important to understand, because each contributer needs to be sure to claim copyright on their contribution so that they have standing to complain if the license is violated.
Notify IBM, Active State, the original copyright holders and the FSF. Let them all know about the obvious GPL violations of their code.
You, fighting this alone, will almost certainly lose to your employer but, the involvement of outsiders could cause your employer to think twice about their pending actions.
Of course, following this advice will almost certainly result in your firing for any of a number of reasons so, you would be best served by also contacting a good lawyer, in advance.
If your employer wins the dispute, they get no more right than you have to break the terms of the GPL.
SteveB.
I have never seen a copyright infringing downloader re-sell the latest Britney album as his own creation. When you can show me that happening, maybe your simple question can get the answer it deserves.
IP rights are not black or white. Just as with most things there is a large gray zone and there is a huge difference between on the one hand leeching a song that you would probably not otherwise buy and on the other hand re-sell someone else's software as your own.
You can not equate theft with jaywalking or involuntary manslaughter with genocide even though they are all crimes.
Money for nothing, pix for free
I'd address this as two issues - one a matter of pure code ownership, the other as a potential GPL violation. As far as ownership goes, you did sign an agreement, but if you can enforce the verbal agreement you made upon entry into the company, you may be able to retain ownership, though probably not without some hassle. Aside from the ownership issue, though, it sounds like the company is attempting to violate the GPL, and you should really consider reporting it as such.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
They gave a verbal ok that the code would remain his. That means they were aware to some degree that the code did not belong to them. I would also think that MS's FUD for the last 6 years should be more than enough to let everybody know about GPL code.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Every time I had signed a contract when getting aboard as a software engineer to a company, whether startup or a big one, I added 3 provisions into my contract:
1) In my spare time I am allowed to provide support/consulting to whoever had employed me in the past. [this generally makes very good impression as it says that you carry responsibility towards your past employers -- if you switch jobs again, they'll be able to hire you to help w/o legal issues in the way]
2) My own projects (list follows) are specifically exempted; I'm not supposed to work on them in work time
3) I am allowed participation in things like USENET groups/online technical forums, mailing lists etc., as part of my work. In the scope of that, it's OK for me to render somebody else assistance via the public media, send in patches etc. Same about contributed to free software projects, whenever I deem that a free software project is usable in my work, and want to do smth to improve its suitability (obviously, if my boss tells me not to do it in work time, I am not doing that).
All the above things are then excluded from the NDA and the IP claims by the company.
VKh
It still would be "derived from the Program or any part thereof". So, that doesn't work.
Isn't that what SCO is claiming against IBM? That because AIX was a derivative work of SysV, that it will always be a derivative work of SysV, even if there's no longer any SysV code in it?
And IBM is saying that no, that's not the case. It's only a derivative work if it's paired with the original code.
Personally, I believe IBM's lawyers over SCO's.
The GPL says: I, the author of this code, allow you to make unchanged copies of the code at will. I also allow you to make changed copies, provided your changes (which you own) are also GPLd.
So, since:
Therefore:
The company has two options: they can either license their changes under the GPL, or they can distribute the original, unmodified program and a bunch of diffs. (Or not distribute it at all.) Claiming that the now own the original code is compeletely nonsensical.
As for the patent issue, I'd say that it's a dead duck because prior art obviously exists, but I don't know much about patents.
they are not equally wrong. that is exactly why there are distinctions in law.
money is THE issue when calculating the degree of infringement. that is the way the law is constructed. non-monetary infringement wasn't even prosecutable until the net act in 1997, iirc.
you argue points i don't make and ignore those that clearly don't side with your opinion. believing harder will not mot make your reality any more true.
there is an established history of people sharing the music that they love. this should be protected under free use [and was until the *aa orgs started rewriting the rulebooks]. i would argue that the mechanism/medium should not matter and that digital sharing today should be just as acceptable as sharing mixed tapes was back in the pre-burner days.
sum.zero