Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Russian programmer fights Goldman Sachs and wins one round

blogs.marketwatch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 142 posts

Re: Russian programmer fights Goldman Sachs and wins one round

#51

Post by Mikeb85 »

For everyone bringing up the GPL licence, strait from the horse's mouth:

> The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization. But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#GP...

Distributing the code within a company/organization does NOT constitute 'distribution', and does NOT require you to release your code.

Edit - and in the licence itself - Version 3 of the GPL

> “The Program” refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this License. Each licensee is addressed as “you”. “Licensees” and “recipients” may be individuals or organizations. And

> To “propagate” a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well.

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

Re: Russian programmer fights Goldman Sachs and wins one round

#52

Post by revelation »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #51

For everyone bringing up the GPL licence, strait from the horse's mouth: > The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization. But if you release…

Organization seems like an odd qualifier. Certainly you have to make the code available to everyone you delivered modified binaries to, and at GPL conditions (meaning they are then free to further distribute it, per GPL)?

Re: Russian programmer fights Goldman Sachs and wins one round

#53

Post by Mikeb85 »

poof131 wrote: post #30

Question: does anyone know if software patents were declared null and void, would this case still exist? It seems he only took snippets of code and not the entire system for profit. How would this case differ if software was copyrightable but not patentable (i.e. Either you stole the manuscript or you didn't)?

Doesn't matter. Open source licences, patents, nothing matter. Code on the employer's computer is considered property, copying it is the same as stealing the actual workstation...

Re: Russian programmer fights Goldman Sachs and wins one round

#54

Post by debt »

OldSchool wrote: post #40

This type of story underscores my Icarus-inspired philosophy in business: fly high but not so high that you become an obvious target or otherwise risk getting burned. I learned relatively early that above some level (that's not even all that high), you'll find that you're dealing primarily with people whose sole purpose in life seems to be to serve their love of money and quest for validation. They are like insects d…

Truth. I was talking stocks with my girlfriend. She thought it was too scary to get involved in something as potentially volatile as the stock market. I told her basically what you just described.

There are many people in business that are literal sociopaths. They will bury and burn any and all barriers on their path to making an increase in share price. "I will not let this company flounder on my watch!", they hypothetically say in my mind. To these mythical business people, the share price is an extension of their character. Maybe that's a bit extreme and that's not why I'm investing.

But it's why the market doesn't scare me. Too many sociopaths all want one thing: the numbers to go up.

I know I'm right too. Just rewind to 2002-2008.

Re: Russian programmer fights Goldman Sachs and wins one round

#55

Post by Mikeb85 »

revelation wrote: post #52
Mikeb85 wrote: post #51

For everyone bringing up the GPL licence, strait from the horse's mouth: > The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization. But if you release…

Organization seems like an odd qualifier. Certainly you have to make the code available to everyone you delivered modified binaries to, and at GPL conditions (meaning they are then free to further distribute it, per GPL)?

Not according to the GSF's website. Besides, let's face it, GS employees likely don't have any 'secret' code anywhere near their computers. It likely lives on their mainframes, and only there.

Re: Russian programmer fights Goldman Sachs and wins one round

#56

Post by Amadou »

ig1 wrote: post #43

A lot of the comments here seem to be oblivious to the details of the original indictment: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/021110aleyn... It pretty explicitly details how the "backup" program he wrote had flags to select what to copy and some of those flags specifically copied GS option pricing code that he had never worked on.

That's not what I see when I read it.

I see that he wrote a backup script that could backup two distinct groups of files depending on what argument he passed on the command-line.

While the indictment mentions that some of the files included stuff he didn't work on, it doesn't say he set flags specifically to grab stuff he hadn't worked on. Only that it was getting swept up as part of a larger backup operation.

It also said he ran the backup on many occasions throughout his employment at Goldman. That doesn't sound like someone who only absconded with code after he got an offer to work at a competitor.

As an aside -- I'm wondering if "the website" referenced in the filing was rapidshare. Weren't they in Germany?

Re: Russian programmer fights Goldman Sachs and wins one round

#57

Post by wglb »

poof131 wrote: post #30

Question: does anyone know if software patents were declared null and void, would this case still exist? It seems he only took snippets of code and not the entire system for profit. How would this case differ if software was copyrightable but not patentable (i.e. Either you stole the manuscript or you didn't)?

Trade secrets are an entirely different category from patents. Patents require you to disclose all the details.

Trade secrets, which is likely what such software is likely to be declared to be, is, well, secret. As such, it has legal protection different than patents or copyrights.

Re: Russian programmer fights Goldman Sachs and wins one round

#58

Post by revelation »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #55
revelation wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Organization seems like an odd qualifier. Certainly you have to make the code available to everyone you delivered modified binaries to, and at GPL conditions (meaning they are then free to further distribute it, per GPL)?

Not according to the GSF's website. Besides, let's face it, GS employees likely don't have any 'secret' code anywhere near their computers. It likely lives on their mainframes, and only there.

Well, it's an FAQ, it's a simplification, not the actual legally binding license.

I can't find any mention of "organization", but I do find these parts (GPLv2):

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: [give access to the sourcecode]

Meaning everyone you distribute a copy to, you have to give access to the sourcecode, too, or provide instructions on how to get the sourcecode.

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

Meaning distributing the program to someone gives them the full rights under the GPL.

(IANAL, so I'd be very pleased to be corrected here. Maybe the FAQ made the assumption that corporations have other means to keep employees from exercising GPL rights? Or maybe the license is to the corporation as a whole, and it itself can't break the GPL unless it distributes it to different entities?)

Re: Russian programmer fights Goldman Sachs and wins one round

#59

Post by adamnemecek »

Permit wrote: post #7
downandout wrote: post #5

It's very clear that Goldman is trying to punish him for leaving, while sending a message to their other programmers that if they leave, their lives will be ruined. Even if this guy ultimately wins the state trial, he will never get back the years he has spent fighting it. Goldman has already won, and in this case that is appalling.

How is that clear? I haven't followed the case, but it seems as though he copied important intellectual property (HFT code) when he left the firm. I'm sure if a developer at Apple or Microsoft downloaded the Windows or OS X kernel code when they left that they would face charges of some kind as well.

Kind of off-topic but the Mac OS X kernel code is actually (mostly?) open source.

http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1084/

Re: Russian programmer fights Goldman Sachs and wins one round

#60

Post by nandemo »

downandout wrote: post #38
melling wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's very clear what he did was wrong. He works in an industry that does not allow you to email code home or copy it off of company computers. Goldman might be a little different, but where I've worked, this was definitely a no, no, and you could easily be fired for doing it.

According to the original article, Goldman was actually violating the license terms of the open source software it had modified by not releasing it. Further, while you and I may have our opinions, a judge found Goldman's actions to be so egregious that he ordered them to pay the defense costs for someone accused of stealing from them. That is exceedingly rare, and wouldn't have happened if there were any doubts about…

> a judge found Goldman's actions to be so egregious that he ordered them to pay the defense costs for someone accused of stealing from them. That is exceedingly rare,

No, GS will have to pay because the defendant was an officer at GS.

Post reply on HN