<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
On 08/02/2009 08:22 PM, Arnout Engelen wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:20090802132238.GX21298@bzzt.net" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 02:20:15PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Arnout Engelen wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">If you don't have the copyright to a piece of code you wrote, for example
because you wrote it for your employer, then this means you are *not allowed*
to distribute this code. Not under the GPL, and not under whatever
other license either.
To distribute the code, you must either get the copyright on the work back,
or get permission from the actual copyright holder (employer, institution) to
do so.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">You misunderstood my broken English. GPL only allows a copyleft, that's
why no institute or professor can use GPL licensed code and take on the
copyright.
I don't think any institute is allowed to take on a copyright by using GPL
licensed code.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Example.
Say I'm employed, and I'm working on some project for my employer. I download
some GPL'ed code, and write some nontrivial additions to it.
This now means the institution has the copyright on the code I wrote. If I'd
want to distribute this software, I'd need 2 things:
1) distribute it under the GPL
2) ask my employer to either:
a) grant me my copyright back on the additions
b) give me permission to distribute the software under the GPL
If I wouldn't do (1), I would violate the copyright of the original author of
the GPL'ed code I download.
If I wouldn't do (2), I would violate the copyright of my employer.
In other words, if my employer doesn't give me permission to distribute the
work I did for him, I cannot distribute it at all, regardless of the GPL.
The instition is still bound by the GPL though, so they can't distribute the
software under anything other than the GPL - but they can still choose not to
distribute at all.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
They can also choose to only distribute privately and then they would
only have to provide copies of the code to the users of the software if
the user asks for the code.<br>
<br>
Hence if none of the users ask for the code, they don't have to
distribute it. Also, this is one point that has always struck me as odd
but IIUC, the distributor doesn't have any obligation under the GPL-v2
to distribute the code in any specific time frame. The GPL-v3 might
have added a clause for the time frame for distribution after a request
is made.<br>
<br>
IIUC, the time frame issue is resolved by the requestee making it clear
that they will distribute a version of the code on their own or
otherwise make it known that the original distributor is not keeping to
the principals of the GPL by delaying release of the code after a
request is made for it's release.<br>
<br>
In other words, the aim of the game is to shame the player who tries to
go against the principals of the GPL. <br>
<br>
That, AFAICT, is the last resort of the GPL before a full scale legal
attack is launched.<br>
<br>
Effectively this works out to:<br>
<br>
1: Play nice and keep everyone happy<br>
2: Shame<br>
3: Lawyers<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd</pre>
<br>
</body>
</html>