On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:45:18 +0200, clipka wrote:

> 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

Potato, potato, in other words.  (Damn, that sounds better than it reads 
<g>)

>> See above.  Maybe we're in violent agreement. :-)
> 
> Only for practical purposes, not in theory ;-)

Well, if the company you've done the work for distributes it, they also 
are required to distribute the code.... :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message