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."
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?
Is there anything that content owners, or anyone else for that matter, can do to get illegal downloaders to cut short their plans and play fair with IP that obviously doesn't belong entirely to them?
Surely if copyright is viewed as so abused as to be invalid invalid in the context of justifying illegal music downloads, it must be equally invalid in the context of the GPL?
Or does it not work both ways...?
Specifics aside, and negligible fallacies in the analogy aside, this is really a very simple question.
If they are publicly traded, then short them.
If they are betting the company on wacky IP claims
and don't understand how modern software works,
then they will go down hill fast. Don't fret about what's going on, just move on.
They're only hope is to have Microsoft backing them
or that they can collect some money on a legal
settlement.
Anyway, this is not a place for an engineer.
Move on soon.
Who the hell would sign such an agreement?
"Hey, we'd like to own your soul and in exchange, we'll give you 40K a year. Sounds like a good deal, eh?"
Stupid Canadians.
You mean that proving the "viral" GPL can somehow override their rights to their employee's creations? That would be the nail in the coffin for GPL in the commercial arena.