Linux counterfeiting, employee GPL contribution cannot be counted on the boss

<! --
@ Page {margin: 2 cm}
P {margin-bottom: 0.21}
-->

Currently


Linux


Counterfeiting has taken another step forward and has gone deep into the encoding layer. Some problems need to be clarified here. Can the coding contribution of enterprise employees to free software be counted in the head of the enterprise boss?

 

We use

Ooo

Office kit as an example (comply

Lgpl
V3.0

), Red Flag

2000

It is an objective fact and a good thing for employees to patch their programs. However, we have to ask:

Ooo

The patched employee, for the Red Flag

2000

Is this patch a "job" in the company? If it is regarded as "job title", the copyright holder of this patch will be a red flag.

2000


The owner (legal representative). Otherwise, the copyright holder of the patch is the employee himself.

 

According to article 14th of China's computer software protection:

1


Software developed by citizens during their employment in the organization

,



Result of executing your job

,


That is,

,



Or the expected results or natural results of your own work activities.

,



The copyright of the Software belongs to the organization.

2


If software developed by citizens is not the result of executing their jobs

,



There is no direct contact with the developer's work in the Organization.

,



Material and technical conditions of unused units

,



The copyright of the Software belongs to the developer.

This causes a problem because

Ooo


Compliance

Lgpl


Rules, which do not contain any commercial software code, even Program Patches cannot have commercial program code, then,

Ooo


The copyright holder accepts the Red Flag

2000


The premise of the patch code for active employees is that the copyright holder of the patch must be the real author of the patch, which is the part of article 14th of the computer software protection regulations.

2


Sub-terms. Red Flag

2000


An "internal agreement" must be reached with the working employee who submitted the patch code in advance (for example, if the employee leaves the enterprise in the future, how should the problem be handled ), this employee is allowed to claim to be the real author of The application patch during his or her employment, that is, according to the above sub-Terms

2


Otherwise, do not submit the code file for the program patch.

2000


It cannot be included.

 

Essentially,

Ooo


Original BOSS

Scott
Mcnealy



Thank you, sir.


2000



The company allows its employees


Ooo



Contribute the program patch code, instead of thanking Hongqi


2000



Company Orientation


Ooo



Code for submitting a program patch (Red Flag


2000



The company still retains the copyright of the patch ). Red Flag


2000



You can't confuse the problem.


Ooo



There is a red flag in it


2000



The Commercial Code


Ooo



Has made substantial contributions.


Ooo



It is a pure free software package and all commercial program code must be removed.


2000



Continue to show off yourself


Ooo



The only foreseeable consequence is:


Ooo



The copyright holder (Oracle) will eventually raise the Red Flag


2000



The patch code submitted completely follows


Ooo



This is a consequence that we all do not want to see.

 

Note:


9



Month


10



Day, Red Flag


2000



Employee Cheng xiuzhi published an article "Red Flag


2000



The first step in substantial contribution ", the article is well written and passionate. This article is a response to this article.