>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?
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.
In the hypothetical, Samsung intentionally put it under GPL. It is truly and legitimately licensed GPL, they're just not giving it to the public at this moment.
Something doesn't truly become GPL until it is distributed, because the license is a contract between licensor and licensee. Only someone with copyright permission can distribute code. Samsung didn't grant copyright permission to its employees, nor did it distribute GPL code to its employees. (In the hypothetical.)
So if I write a piece of software, burn it onto a hundred disks, put the disks in a nicely labeled basket for people to take, go to lunch, and people grab some, at what point does the license kick in?
I find strange your statement that there is no license despite every file header (hypothetically) claiming a license, and this being authorized by the entire management chain.
In the example with you putting the disks in a basket, you've intentionally made them available for people that are not your employees to take, so you're distributing them. The license kicks in when one is taken. It's analogous to downloading software.
The point is that for a license to be binding it has to be offered willingly. If I sign a blank check and you steal it from me, filling out $1000 and your name, although you'll be able to cash it, you have no right to the money, and I can undo the action.
The reason internal code is special is because the employees are not considered individuals to whom the company has distributed the software. Instead they are a part of the company.
I identified some relevant questions in the GPL FAQ. I believe that the first one and third one are what you care about.
>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?