Reading between the lines, this is my guess as to what's going on:
Goldman Sachs built an internal-use-only tool that relied on some GPL code. Aleynikov is going to claim that this made Goldman Sach's code fall under the GPL, and therefore he has a right to redistribute it.
I hope that's not what's going on, because the pointy-haired ones don't need another reason to be afraid of FOSS.
It seems like he's essentially grasping at straws after the fact to defend himself. But as has been said, that's not how open source works. I don't think this is actually going to make anyone nervous since clearly no one bought his story. You can lie and not be believed about proprietary licenses too.
... I feel sad actually sympathizes with the prosecution here but that's how it goes.
Comments
Reading between the lines, this is my guess as to what's going on:
Goldman Sachs built an internal-use-only tool that relied on some GPL code. Aleynikov is going to claim that this made Goldman Sach's code fall under the GPL, and therefore he has a right to redistribute it.
I hope that's not what's going on, because the pointy-haired ones don't need another reason to be afraid of FOSS.
That is not how GPL works. Let's say you have derived work from GPLed source (DW).
if (you publish binary of DW) then {you have to provide sources of DW under GPL}
Simply it does not apply to in-house (non-published) work. You are fine to keep it closed-source.
I believe you are right.
This article is more coherent.
http://www.fiercecomplianceit.com/story/aleynikov-trial-and-...
It seems like he's essentially grasping at straws after the fact to defend himself. But as has been said, that's not how open source works. I don't think this is actually going to make anyone nervous since clearly no one bought his story. You can lie and not be believed about proprietary licenses too.
... I feel sad actually sympathizes with the prosecution here but that's how it goes.