2 Aug
2009
2 Aug
'09
11:27 a.m.
Arnout Engelen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 02:20:15PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
Easy to understand examples, thank you. Yes, this is what I mean by my
post, using GPL code means that nobody can take on the copyright without
violating the GPL.
Arnout Engelen wrote:
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.
Arnout
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.
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.