OSDev.org

Solar wrote:A company could make a claim that your spare-time work is "derived" from 9-to-5 work. They can (in most legislations) rule that you may not work on a "competing" product while employed (protecting their IP).

I see. Then this is definitely a difference. In my country a company can't do that; it is perfectly fine to work on a "competing" product in your spare-time, no company have a saying in that. Actually the situation here is quite the contrary: it is rather encouraged because companies have realized that by having the same hobby the employee will get more experience on the topic without the need to pay for their education Regardless a company can make a claim, but for that they have to prove that the employee have stolen and reused source code. Reimplementation from scratch doesn't count, it can't be considered a derivative. Which is absolutely correct imho, no employee should steal source code (not only from their employer, but from anywhere), that's just not right, period. Likewise if an employee learns something from their day-time job which they can benefit from, then that knowledge is theirs, and only theirs. This is only fair this way I'd say. Both parties got something, so it's a win-win.

Cheers,
bzt

~ wrote:I understand that open source in general is OK to use as long as you produce back more open sources for generic use...

Ah, but therein lies the problem. It does not matter how you understand it!

In the eyes of the GPL proponents, "open source" (BSD, CC0, ...) is a lesser thing than "free software". Not a bit lesser, but much lesser. "A social problem", actually. (Direct quote from Mr. Stallman.)

The GPL is quite clear about this: If you use GPL'ed code for your project, your project must be GPL as well. Not "some kind of open source", "available", "beneficial", or "giving back". GPL, very specifically. Otherwise you are in breach of the GPL license, and they do take it seriously.

~ wrote:If somebody really doesn't want others to use their code, it's easier that they keep it private forever, share it when they want, but the rest of the code that is public will be easily used as much as any HTML/JavaScript code for any purposes.

You do realize that you are not allowed to copy HTML / JavaScript, either, without permission / license? The fact that it is available does not mean you are allowed to copy it. If I post a picture on my website, without giving permission to copy it (like for example CC-SA-BY), you are not allowed to use it in any way other than looking at it on my website. "All rights reserved" is, indeed, the default of copyright.

Thank you all guys for ur very interesting notes about the legal side of the problem.
I'm not a programmer and I don't plan to use any code any where. Just for fun I like to understand how stuff works under the hood like any curious person.
My ultimate goal (the dream of my life) is to understand the Linux 0.01 source code !!

Just an aside from all the other posts about the GPL: If you build your own OS with GPL code you don't have to make your code/changes available if you aren't distributing your project to others.

MichaelPetch wrote:Just an aside from all the other posts about the GPL: If you build your own OS with GPL code you don't have to make your code/changes available if you aren't distributing your project to others.

Though this is true, the criteria for "distributing" can include things like uploading to GitHub in a public repo, or even copying and pasting a snippet here for debugging help.
Seriously people, if you can't or won't understand and comply by the licence then using the licenced code in any way is a breech of the copyright. Either take the time to understand what you're doing or avoid anyone else's code like the plague, doing anything else opens you up to legal action which can blow back onto your employer, this forum, the wiki and any open source projects you contribute to in any way.

Putting it on Githib is distribution. Where did I suggest it wasn't? I'm just saying that if you develop an OS without distributing it then you are entitled to make all the changes you want without having to make the changes available.

But what good does an OS do if you may neither distribute it, nor provide services on? (Because that's covered by the GPL v3 as well.) Means you'll never have somebody else but you ever writing software for it... a bit of a bummer, isn't it?

A single individual writing a Hobby OS for themselves to learn about the process may never have an intention to distribute it.

On another side note: A business can alter GPL software and use it internally across their organization without making the changes available as long as the product isn't distributed to the public.

MichaelPetch wrote:A single individual writing a Hobby OS for themselves to learn about the process may never have an intention to distribute it.

Yep. Some people are weird that way. I used to not understand them at all, but now... I don't know.

MichaelPetch wrote:On another side note: A business can alter GPL software and use it internally across their organization without making the changes available as long as the product isn't distributed to the public.

Um... Does this apply to all versions of the GPL? I remember Serious Questions on this subject years ago. In any case, if the company has subsidiaries or contract workers, problems may apply.

Lots of companies outright ban GPL-licensed software. They don't want it anywhere near their software for fear of accidentally infringing it.

Regarding internal business usage, it applies to all versions of the GPL. A business I was in approached the FSF over the issue. Years later they put this on their site in the FAQ:

"Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company “distribution”? (#InternalDistribution)
No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.

However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution."

As for the situation with a multinational corporation with subsidiaries that would be another question although an "organization" is a broad term and probably covers subsidiaries. Just my opinion, but one could query them to find out.