Slashdot Mirror
Can Employer Usurp Copyright On GPL-Derived Work?
An anonymous reader writes "I am a recent graduate, and I've been working on my own on a project that uses GPL-licensed libraries. Later a university department hired me, on a part-time basis, to develop this project into a solution that they needed. The project's size increased over time and soliciting help from the open source community seemed like the obvious thing to do. However, when I suggested this, my boss was not interested, and it was made clear to me that the department's position was that copyright of the whole thing belonged to them. Indeed, by default work created for an employer belongs to the employer, so I may have gotten myself in the same trap discussed here years ago. Even though I want to release my code to the public I don't know whether I have the legal right to do so. I did start the project on my own. And, since no written or verbal agreement was ever made to transfer copyright over to my employer, I question whether they can claim that they now own the extended version of the project. Also, the whole project relies on GPL libraries, and without those libraries it would be useless. Can they still claim copyright and prevent me from publishing the source code even though it is derived from GPL software?" Some early commenters on the submission pointed out that it matters whether the libraries were licensed under the LGPL vs. the GPL.
no GPL violation if they do not distribute. what are your grounds for suggesting this is a GPL violation ?
All the work you did for them belongs to them. However, they may not be legally entitled to use it how they'd like. If it's based on GPL code and they don't want to release the whole thing under the GPL, they'll need to rewrite the sections under the GPL before they can have their way with it.
Let's be clear. You have no rights to do whatever you want with the code you wrote for them.
Gah. Every time this kind of story gets posted to Slashdot we go through the same conversations.
You entered into the employment and provided them with the code base, they most likely have a claim to it.
All the work you did for them is work-for-hire, they own it.
There's nothing wrong with using GPL libraries for internal proprietary software.. the GPL is a *distribution* license, you haven't said anything about distribution so I'm assuming they're not distributing it, in which case the GPL is irrelevant.
There's lots and lots of source code in the world, plenty of it is free for you to hack on, move on.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Before they can have their way with it, yes - but they can use it internally - just as I can make derived works from GPL code and use them however I want, myself or in my company. What I can't do is distribute it, sell it, etc... but if I base my employers in-house time-tracking system on some GPL code - the company is under no usage restriction whatsoever, and is under no obligation to share those changes with anyone else.
If they do want to distribute the stuff outside their organisation, they'll have to do so under the terms of the GPL - other than that scenario, they can do whatever they want internally.
He doesn't need to change the license.
1. Alice starts a GPL project.
2. Bob hires Alice to write an extension to the GPL project.
3. During her employ (or before, it doesn't matter) Alice uses some GPL libraries written by Claire.
4. Alice leaves Bob's employ.
FACT 1: Bob owns all the changes Alice made while in his employ.
FACT 2: Alice had no right to distribute changes owned by Bob.
FACT 3: Bob is not obligated to distribute the changes.
FACT 4: As the GPL only relates to distribution, not use, Bob is free to use the software.
FACT 5: If Bob later distributes the changes without placing those changes under the GPL, both Alice and Claire can sue him.
Nothing "automatically" becomes GPL software.
How we know is more important than what we know.
This is what it boils down to, and what people often forget or misunderstand about GPL. You can do with GPL code whatever you want internally as long as you don't distribute it. It is a license that specifies how the party someone distributes to has to distribute it when he/she does.
The code OP wrote on his own is on his copyright and he can distribute under the GPL. The extensions he wrote for his employer are owned by the employer (he has the copyright). If he wants to distribute it, the employer has to respect the GPL.
They can claim copyright because they own what you produced at the time you were employed there (usually, may depend on the contract).
Since you are at a university it might be smart to see if there are any regulations or memos that recommend or require that department-developed software becomes open source. I know that some countries, particularly in the EU, see that tax-payed software should become publicly available. Try make some suggestions in this direction.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Is it possible to do two distinct forks simultaneously, if you're the one doing the coding on both forks? Couldn't your employer argue that your contributions to the personal fork are inevitably derived from the code you wrote for their fork? And if you write your fork first, and then soon thereafter write the employer's fork, isn't the employer's fork inevitably derived from your personal fork, since you wrote both?
I think a single person simultaneously (or even with weeks) writing both forks is a bad idea, at least from a legal "who owns this code" standpoint.
consult a lawyer, but IMO the key thing you said is:
"I did start the project on my own. And, since no written or verbal agreement was ever made to transfer copyright over to my employer, I question whether they can claim that they now own the extended version of the project."
it was yours to start with. they paid you to do some extra work on it. there was no transfer of license.
they may "own" any of the work-for-hire stuff you did while employed by them (depends on the nature of the employment - usually, in simple terms, if you're a contractor, you own your work but if you're an employee, they do) BUT THEY DO NOT OWN THE COPYRIGHT, AND THEY DO NOT OWN YOUR PRIOR WORK.
BTW verbal agreements are worth the paper they're written on - doesn't matter what they claim you said, if they can't produce a signed transfer agreement, it means nothing. same as if an employer verbally agrees that you will get paid quadruple for working overtime, unless that's standard practice where you work it's unenforcable unless it's in writing. and same as if the salesman says you can opt out of the contract at any time for any reason without penalty - if it's not what the contract says, it means nothing.
never trust a verbal agreement. they're worthless. this is true anywhere, not just in employment.
BTW, crap like this is why i *NEVER* sign an employment agreement without carefully looking at the clauses to do with ownership of work. if it says anything other than "what i do during work time on work equipment is yours, what i do on my time on my own equipment is mine" i send it back for another edit. i've had one or two bosses quibble about that until I ask them if they want to start paying me for 24 hours a day rather than 7.25.
(that question was always a good answer to the occasional managerial whinges about long hair and beard too)
The blunt truth is that he made two stupid mistakes.
1) He didn't discuss the university's position on this and get it made clear in the contract in the first place, and
2) He came to Slashdot for legal advice.
It's been shown countless times that Slashdotters in general *do not understand how law works*. They assume that one can deduce how the law works logically, and that's how it is.
Well, it's not. The only way to know about how the law works is to learn how it works. It's not always logical, it's not always the way it *should* be (in a reasonable *or* in a logical world). I've actually been criticised for pointing out the latter, as if pointing out that the law doesn't work in that idealised way meant I endorsed its flaws (which is another stupid thing to do, but Slashdotters aren't always the detached paragons of common-sense that some would like to see themselves as).
Even if they understand the GPL in isolation, this case requires one to know how this relates to employment laws, jurisdictions, "works for hire", blah blah...
Bottom line- being an expert in IT and related fields does not qualify you to answer legal questions. IANAL, and neither are the vast majority of those contributing to this thread. And the problem is sorting out those who really *do* know what they're talking about from those who simply think they do.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).