Larry Garfield wrote: > If the code is "work for hire" and the initial ownership is with the > client/company, then there is no distribution and so you are not required to > do anything. That includes if you are a full time employee of the company. OK, that's more or less my understanding. It is my understanding that, by default, contracting law states that any work done under contract is your (the contractor's) copyright (e.g. on a very loose contract that is the default case). Many employers of contractors will typically change this default stance. > So in the OP's case, if he takes an existing GPLed project, modifies it in > whatever way (including removing mention of the original project), and gives > a copy to his client, his only legal obligation is to provide the client with > the code under the GPL so that the client can, if he wants, pass the code on > to someone else under the GPL. "Someone else" could be a public FTP server > or not. I was half assuming the stance of the employer here was that he did not want the changes shared. So assuming this and the above note about contract law etc., then my original statement is correct. Whether these assumptions are correct in themselves (and this my whole thread of assumption breaks down!), I'll leave for future research and happily live in my bubble of ignorance ;) Col -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
