Hypothetical scenario... I'm under contract to company X. I'm asked to extend software Y (which is released under the GNU GPL license) and my extensions (Z) derives from sources of Y, i.e. I use source code from Y as a starting point. My extension in the end takes the form of a handful of patch files (i.e. diffs) and 2 standalone source files. MUST the extension Z therefore also be released under the GNU GPL license? Can X choose to distribute the 2 standalone .o files purely in binary form? The code contained within the 2 standalone files is not derived from any GNU GPL sources.

Now, assuming that the GNU GPL does apply to the entire code base of the extension that I produced (Z), do I have the right to distribute the sources? My understanding is that the GPL only obligates that the sources of Z accompany the binaries of Z, so X only has to give Z sources to customers who receive the Z extension. However do I, who produced Z while under contract to X, have the right to distribute the sources any way I like?

An extreme example... lets say I'm working for someone else now, can I bring the sources for Z into the new company for use in their products? The issue here is whether I have the right to distribute GNU GPL source code which I produced under contract to X.

I would appreciate any comments anyone has on this issue, thanks!

This post has been edited by int19h: Jun 5 2005, 05:11 PM

heheh, yep, that's right, reboot... I haven't touched x86 assembly in... jeeze... ~15 years. But even then, it was some very cincai stuff, never really did x86 assembly seriously.

This post has been edited by int19h: Jun 5 2005, 09:52 PM

u mean dat Y is from GPL right..n Z is a deravatives from Y.

i'm no expert in this "law" but as i understand

taken from Gnu GPL http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html


so the Z is still in GPL to me

n regarding can be distibuted to ur new company..who the owner the gpl for the Z?its u or ur company..if its u..then u a freely to do nythin wit it..if its ur company..it has right to not to distibuted the source..to other..

but to me..because of its GPL..u can use it.at ur other new comp..because of the GPL itself



taken from gpl faq

nyway..as i know..as long as te program is a GPL..u can freely used at nywhere...as long as it doesnt violate the GPL rule...n one more thing


taken from GPL Faq

u cant change to commercial purpose..


but.dunno arr..juz my 2 cent..coz i nva had work on this situation.i'm still study..n computer is not my major

This post has been edited by amirsubhi: Jun 6 2005, 06:46 AM

urm.i'm no expert in this "bidang" ..but if i'm wrong...tell me arh

Thanks amirsubhi... from what you said I guess this whole thing is a gray area, since I don't know how the company plans to distribute the extension: they may elect to distribute the non-GPL parts of the extension as a seperate entity altogether. It would be a very difficult way of doing things, but they nevertheless have that option. I think I'll just wait for the company to say whether or not I can release it lar...

(I kinda don't wanna get on my former company's bad side - might wanna work with them in the future, which is why I'm being cautious.)

yeah..da best thing is u deal wit ur company for it.

This post has been edited by amirsubhi: Jun 6 2005, 09:32 AM

Have a look at BSD licenses and other OSS licenses which may be suitable for ur company needs.

The trouble is right... I guess for smaller companies, either they start with an existing open source project and extend it for their own project (in which case typically they are bound by the license of the original open source project - usually GPL), or they write something from scratch. For small companies, I don't know if there is much value in releasing sources, especially under any license other than the GNU GPL.

For larger companies who are interested in building up entire platforms, yes I can see where OSS makes sense, but for smaller companies I think the argument is a bit weaker.

But assuming it does make sense, if a small company busts it's hump to produce an app that it releases under a BSD license, surely it will suck ass if another bigger company comes along, gets the source for the app, modifies it, and sells it as a proprietary thing with more features and better support. This kind of thing is allowed by the BSD license right, or have I misunderstood it?

it's not grey at all.

if 0.000001% of it is GPLed then the whole thing must be GPL. if that is not cool then you need LGPL.