Unsure of GPL privilege to distribute

[Hendrik Weimer]

Stephan <gplviol at encambio.com> writes:

> 1. The software contains one organizational 'Copyright Company name'
>    copyright and one personal 'Copyright Author name' copyright to
>    protect the life of the software. Who owns the software now that
>    the author no longer works at the company?

This depends a lot on the jurisdiction and the concrete details. In
Germany the employer own the rights to the code if the work was
created as part of his regular duties. If the author created the
software during his free time, he is the sole owner.

> 2. Assume that due to contractual text the author does not own
>    the software and rather the company owns it entirely. May
>    the author distribute the software now anyways?

No. Unless he has a written statement (apart from the code, which he
added himself) that the software is actually GPLed.

> 3. It seems that the key to answering #2 is determining if the
>    software was 'distributed' under the terms of the GPL v2. How
>    can the author know if the software he wrote was 'distributed'?

I don't think that matters. Taking some code and calling it GPLed does
not make it such.

> 4. If it comes to a civil lawsuit in the U.S. or europe, which
>    party has the burden of proving the other party wrong?

Again this depends a lot on the jurisdiction. If the company files a
lawsuit then it will probably argue that he wasn't authorized to add
the GPL notices. Then, he would have to prove that this isn't true or
does not apply for some reason.

> 5. Is there any chance of a criminal lawsuit in the U.S. or europe
>    if the author distributes the software?

Probably not. Criminal charges usually require a willful
infringement. In this case this seems rather doubtful, however,
obtaining advice on a mailing list might lead to the contrary. :-/

HTH,
Hendrik