|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |