On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 09:32:37 +0000 (UTC) "Bernd Jendrissek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Stefaan A Eeckels > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Actually, as far as I understand it, you would be the only person in > >trouble. The company might have a pre-release of David's GPLed > >software, but this does not give you, their employee, the right to > >copy and distribute it. The fact that the software is licensed to the > >company under the GPL does not mean that it is licensed to you under > >the GPL, and hence you would be in the dock for theft (of the CD, and > >the software). > > The company would be vicariously responsible for the actions of its > agent, no? If the agent acts against the company's explicit instructions, the company would not be responsible at all. Remember that the point Alfred was making is that because the software is licensed under the GPL, he is allowed to make a copy _even_ if the CD is not his property and he was acting as an agent of licensee/owner of the copy. To him, the license is a magical property attached to the software, and not an agreement between licensor and licensee. > That responsibility would either include liability to David the > copyright holder, or it would not. There are two totally separate issues here. The first one is between the employee and the employer/licensee. It is obvious that license agreements entered into by an employer are not automatically applicable to the employee (and vice versa). Even if not formally instructed not to distribute software, the employee doesn't get the right to distribute software obtained by the employer even if the license permits the employer/licensee to distribute copies (the moment you think of software not licensed under the GPL this becomes evident). The second one is between David (as licensor) and the employer. If the software was licensed under the GPL, then David cannot stop the licensee from redistributing it. If he shows pre-releases under another license, or no license at all, then it is obvious that the terms of the GPL would not apply. But in no case does the employee gain any rights from a license he was not party to. <...> > Other than that I fail to see how the employee can get into any > trouble other than insuburdination, which is a matter between > employer and employee only. If David doesn't want employees > distributing his software before he wants it distributed, I'm sure > he's smart enough not to distribute it under the (unencumbered) GPL > in the first place! I think that employees do not have any rights to their employer's property, whatever the conditions were under which it was acquired. The same would apply to the files on my computer if you were to borrow it. None of the software on that machine is a "copy that you rightfully acquired", and hence you have no right to copy it, whatever its license. You own no copies, and you have no license. It's as simple as that. Take care, -- Stefaan -- As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning, and meaningful statements lose precision. -- Lotfi Zadeh _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
