Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on September 18, 2004 09:00 AM
If the contractor took GPL'ed Mambo code and modified it for Connolly, and Connolly is distributing that code, then surely the modified code must be released? Or does he claim to not be distributing the code by only providing a service?
The guys at Mambo are pretty convinced that they are in the clear, especially as Mr Connolly has refused to show them the contract that would clear up if this was a work-for-hire or not. Mr Connolly may in fact be the copyright holder, but the GPL may still require the public relese.
One of Mr Connolly's big complaints seems to be that he had an original idea for the module, and that idea is now in Mambo. Copyrights do not cover ideas, only a patent or a non-disclose clause in the contract could prevent the contractor from re-implementing the idea. Only a look at the contract could clear this up.
Either way, threatening to sue end-users is counter-productive, and would have a low probability of succeeding (see groklaw for extended discussions on this point with regard to SCO).
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
But...
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 18, 2004 09:00 AMThe guys at Mambo are pretty convinced that they are in the clear, especially as Mr Connolly has refused to show them the contract that would clear up if this was a work-for-hire or not. Mr Connolly may in fact be the copyright holder, but the GPL may still require the public relese.
One of Mr Connolly's big complaints seems to be that he had an original idea for the module, and that idea is now in Mambo. Copyrights do not cover ideas, only a patent or a non-disclose clause in the contract could prevent the contractor from re-implementing the idea. Only a look at the contract could clear this up.
Either way, threatening to sue end-users is counter-productive, and would have a low probability of succeeding (see groklaw for extended discussions on this point with regard to SCO).
John
#