Jim Henderson schrieb:
> If you (as a contractor) modify code for a client (the company) and the 
> base code is GPL code, you (the contractor) are required under the GPL to 
> provide the source to the client (the company) because giving them a 
> binary copy of the program is distribution.
> 
> If you (as an employee) modify code for your employer, the code stays 
> with the employer either way.  You can't quit the job and take "your" 
> code with you; most employers will claim the work you've done for them as 
> an employee belongs to them regardless of the license for the code.

So that basically boils down to what I was saying earlier:

If I as a contractor am not hired to /provide/ them with a /modified/ 
work, but to /perform/ modifications to /their/ copy of the work, then I 
see the role as equal to that of the employee - and yes, I'm probably 
only allowed to carry out such modifications to the GPL'ed code if my 
contract with the company states that the changes are theirs.

Still, I do /not/ distribute code nor binaries, and therefore am /not/ 
obliged to GPL those changes myself. It's up to the company to decide 
whether they want to do that or not.

I must confess that this distinction is apparently moot in practice, but 
still - *I DO NOT GPL IT, DAMN!* :-P

> See above.  Maybe we're in violent agreement. :-)

Only for practical purposes, not in theory ;-)

Post a reply to this message