[wtracy]

Reading between the lines, this is my guess as to what's going on:

Goldman Sachs built an internal-use-only tool that relied on some GPL code. Aleynikov is going to claim that this made Goldman Sach's code fall under the GPL, and therefore he has a right to redistribute it.

I hope that's not what's going on, because the pointy-haired ones don't need another reason to be afraid of FOSS.

[woid]

That is not how GPL works. Let's say you have derived work from GPLed source (DW).

if (you publish binary of DW) then {you have to provide sources of DW under GPL}

Simply it does not apply to in-house (non-published) work. You are fine to keep it closed-source.

[joe_the_user]

I believe you are right.

This article is more coherent.

http://www.fiercecomplianceit.com/story/aleynikov-trial-and-...

It seems like he's essentially grasping at straws after the fact to defend himself. But as has been said, that's not how open source works. I don't think this is actually going to make anyone nervous since clearly no one bought his story. You can lie and not be believed about proprietary licenses too.

... I feel sad actually sympathizes with the prosecution here but that's how it goes.