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."
The GPL doesn't give a rat's about IP agreements, and it doesn't care who the rightsholder is. When you transfer the copyright from your code to them, they become the GPL copyright holder, and are thus bound by that license for the code in question. That means the patents are likely good and the derived code must be made available with the app, though not necissarily free, and not necissarily public.
But I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and I might be wrong.
There are much larger issues at stake than one persons employment. If your employer wants to "own" your thoughts and developments during the period of employment then they have to purchase that right. Employees have to stop signing employment contracts that remove their future rights without adaquate compensation. At it's simplest the implied employment contract is "I agree to perform work for you and you agree to pay me for that work". If an employer wants to extend the contract to include ideas that you might develop during your employment, however unrelated to the company, then they need to compensate you for that. Remember, contracts are only enforceable if they are fair and equatible to both parties . Don't sign employment contracts without speaking to council. Your prospective employer spoke with their council to develop the contract. You have a right to speak with yours.
We're not happy 'til you're not happy.
So, your company paid you to write free software for everyone, even their competitors.
Your employer might be upset with you.
But keep in mind that it's the code that's licensed. The invention, if their is one, can still be protected.
And you can also pull a Stallman: reimplement a version of the code that's GPL'd.
It can't be the same code, but it can do the same thing.
Wrong...
The Code is GPL (unless someone removes ALL of the original code) and as such can ONLY be release under the GPL.
If the company's contract with the programmer is valid then they OWN the code but they suffer the same restrictions on how they can use the code.
They could however claim that the modifier (who they 'own' by contract) doesn't have the right to release the code, and hence restrict the distribution of the modified code and any other code which was based upon it (UGLY, but check the GPL... you can't release code under the GPL that you don't own..and the GPL has clause to deal with accidential release )
The GPL doesn't cover patents at all, so the company could apply for a patent even if they original/unmodified version has the functionality...they shouldn't get it in that case but it wouldn't violate the GPL.
Lastly...if the original GPL code is completely scrubbed away..the company could release the resulting (no longer derivative code) under any license they choose.