[read_again]

What chalst probably meant is that the fact that the code was orginally GPL doesn't make any illegal obtention of the code legal. If you keep code you wrote on your computer with a GPL attached, and someone breaks in and find it, he won't have the right to use it afterwards thanks to GPL.

The GPL defines the rights offered to "clients" by the "vendor", and how these rights are granted. Illegal obtention of the code is not one of the granting processes defined by the GPL.

Therefore, putting the GPL on that code is meaningless, whether it were GPLed initially or not.

[Dylan16807]

Isn't the GPL unilateral? If something is actually under the GPL, it shouldn't matter how it was obtained.

[Nursie]

I don't think so, no. The GPL talks about a lot of transference of rights that take place during the act of distribution. If one does not have those rights to start with (the code was stolen, for instance) then it wouldn't apply.

[adamzochowski]

Actually it matters.

Original code is GPL. I make modifications. These modifications are mine. Someone stealing my modifications is performing IP theft.

Now, GPL stipulates when I have to release my modifications. I only have to release my patches when GPLv2: I distribute software to clients/users. In GPLv3 it is when clients/users use my software (aka: webservices).

[skore]

Complete and utter horseshit. What you're talking about in the last sentence is the Affero GPL.

The GPL states and has always stated: If you modify code that is licensed as GPL and want to share it, the modified version needs to be GPL as well ("share alike").

But: Nobody forces you to release anything. If you don't release software, you don't need to make a license for it. If you want, you can license it as "Adam Zochowski Super License 5000". Frame it and put it on your wall, nobody gives a damn.

The GPL only governs and can only govern what happens when you actually do release (GPLv3 uses the term "convey") software to other people.

Sidenote: This post again confirms Stallmans rule of thumb that anybody using the utterly corrupt term "Intellectual Property" is either a moron or trying to mislead you.

[read_again]

GP wording was perhaps a bit awkward, but I don't think he meant that modifications had to be released unilaterally: He just indicated the difference between gplv2 and v3 in the situations when the licenses force the release of the modifications (ie. when distributing the program in non source form).

[Dylan16807]

I wonder why people are voting you down. The GP is definitely confusing GPL with AGPL.

[Dylan16807]

That's a completely different issue from what I'm talking about. You're talking about modifications that aren't yet/ever released under the GPL. I'm asking what happens if it's already completely GPL, including modifications, and it gets leaked.

[foobarbazqux]

Nothing happens. The GPL is built on top of copyright. You cannot license code that you do not have copyright permission for under the GPL.

[Dylan16807]

Wow, this conversation sure is going in circles.

>I think Wisty was responding to the part where the crazy man claimed the driver code was originally GPL internally before being changed.

As in, IF Samsung put version 1 under GPL, owning the copyright, on purpose, but they were keeping it hidden and someone snuck it out, would it be okay to use?

[foobarbazqux]

No, because the person who snuck it out didn't have copyright permission from the company. Employees at most corporations don't own the code they write.

If this were legal, then it would also be legal for an outsider to hack Samsung and release their code under the GPL.

For licensing purposes, employees at companies do not have GPL code they are working on distributed to them by the company; they are part of the company.