Comments on: Stealing Open Source http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/2009/08/28/stealing-open-source/ by Stephen E. Arnold Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:05:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: sperky undernet http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/2009/08/28/stealing-open-source/comment-page-1/#comment-150462 sperky undernet Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:30:13 +0000 http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/?p=8156#comment-150462 The continuing legal trail: guilty verdict December 10, sentencing to be on March 18, see http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/sergeyVerdict.pdf in relative fast forward ( perhaps within the context - does context matter? given here http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/rainkeep/2009/07/-plunge-protection-team.php ). Not included in the indictment but referred to here http://www.institutionalinvestorsecuritiesblog.com/2010/12/exgoldman_sachs_employee_found.html is the nature of the signed employee confidentiality agreement which would have made the use of perhaps any professional knowledge gained on the job illegal let alone the use of copied software, open source or not. So where is the line and who measures it? The continuing legal trail: guilty verdict December 10, sentencing to be on March 18, see http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/sergeyVerdict.pdf in relative fast forward ( perhaps within the context – does context matter? given here http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/rainkeep/2009/07/-plunge-protection-team.php ). Not included in the indictment but referred to here http://www.institutionalinvestorsecuritiesblog.com/2010/12/exgoldman_sachs_employee_found.html is the nature of the signed employee confidentiality agreement which would have made the use of perhaps any professional knowledge gained on the job illegal let alone the use of copied software, open source or not. So where is the line and who measures it?

]]> By: Stephen E. Arnold http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/2009/08/28/stealing-open-source/comment-page-1/#comment-65999 Stephen E. Arnold Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:01:11 +0000 http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/?p=8156#comment-65999 Charlie Hull, With all the buzz about open source, is this now a world for the legal eagles? When lawyers get involved, costs sky rocket. Open source trims costs. Perhaps some folks may not understand the cost implications of license variants. The marketing collateral skips over liabilities with a certain Nureyevian lightness in my opinion. Stephen Arnold, August 28, 2009 Charlie Hull,

With all the buzz about open source, is this now a world for the legal eagles? When lawyers get involved, costs sky rocket. Open source trims costs. Perhaps some folks may not understand the cost implications of license variants. The marketing collateral skips over liabilities with a certain Nureyevian lightness in my opinion.

Stephen Arnold, August 28, 2009

]]> By: Charlie Hull http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/2009/08/28/stealing-open-source/comment-page-1/#comment-65986 Charlie Hull Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:52:06 +0000 http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/?p=8156#comment-65986 It's important to remember that what identifies code as open source is really only the license. As an open source developer, who holds the copyright in the code one has written, one can choose a license for various different reasons. The GPL is a reasonably restrictive license, designed to prevent open source code from being locked up in a closed source package, whereas the BSD and MIT licenses are less restrictive. I think in this case the key point is that Goldman Sachs would have held the copyright in the software they had created, even if it was derived from open source code. If they chose not to distribute it outside their organisation that would be their choice, and even if the code was under an open source license it would be wrong for their employee to take it. It’s important to remember that what identifies code as open source is really only the license. As an open source developer, who holds the copyright in the code one has written, one can choose a license for various different reasons. The GPL is a reasonably restrictive license, designed to prevent open source code from being locked up in a closed source package, whereas the BSD and MIT licenses are less restrictive.

I think in this case the key point is that Goldman Sachs would have held the copyright in the software they had created, even if it was derived from open source code. If they chose not to distribute it outside their organisation that would be their choice, and even if the code was under an open source license it would be wrong for their employee to take it.

]]>