61–70 of 142 posts
How is this not double jeopardy?
But really it's a judge ruling that the original trial was all effed up and that a new trial would need to take place in order to do justice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If he modified it for his own use, then that's clearly the case. If he modified it for the use of others within Goldman, they might have conceivably had a claim to a copy of the source under the GPL; he would not. I'm not entirely sure of that, or of whether employment contracts &c could limit that. For that matter, I'm not entirely sure what the answer should be there.
I think an internal user could easily be persuaded not to demand the source code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Goldman was actually violating the license terms of the open source software it had modified by not releasing it. I down-voted you because people keep saying that and it is false. The Vanity Fair article uses the qualifier "possibly" when talking about GS violating the licenses and that's because none of the major license families (BSD, GPL, MPL, etc) have a requirement to release modifications if the whole is not re…
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…
For those that are interested in the backstory: http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2013/09/michael-lewis-gol...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I read the original (very detailed) article. According to it, everything he copied was non-proprietary. Almost all of it was open source stuff.
That doesn't make any sense. If the code truly were FOSS, why on earth would he copy it from his employer when he could eliminate legal risk by downloading it off the open internet? We know he's not stupid.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 yo…
> “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.
Here is the story covered in more detail: http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2013/09/michael-lewis-gol...