On 08/05/2013 08:46 PM, David Rosenstrauch wrote:
On 08/05/2013 12:16 PM, luke.leighton wrote:
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Ian Stirling <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 04.08.2013 17:40, Joseph Heenan wrote:
Still, albeit probably not violating the GPL, removing the original
copyright statements does feel very wrong, but I have no idea what law
if any it violates.
Joseph
As I understand it - it means your code isn't licensed. (GPLV2)
'4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except
as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to
copy,
modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will
automatically
terminate your rights under this License.'
'0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a
notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
under the
terms of this General Public License'
If you modify it, and remove the copyright - you have no licence to the
subsequent code - even if you don't distribute it, making the
distribution
clause irrelevant.
now why the fuck didn't his defense lawyer spot that at the time, and
have the case thrown out, on the basis that goldman sachs were
criminally infringing copyright??
they even *said* in court that the two identical pieces of code were
held up, side-by-side, one criminally-infringing of copyright by
having the original authors copyright removed, and the original
showing the correct authors.
On possible reason: the code might not have been GPL. (It's not
clear from the article what library it was or what license it had.)
But it's also possible that his attorney didn't totally understand
open source licenses and their implications. (Or didn't think that
the judge or jury would.)
DR
what do you think about this one? (2009!):
http://news.techworld.com/sme/3200867/did-goldman-sachs-developer-steal-open-source-software/
