The GPL and a fuzzy line I'm walking...
 

Here's a weird little question for all of you...

I have recently been promoted by the company I've been working for to be a full-time programmer. Previously, I had a few pet projects, but was mainly employed as a tech support rep.

Anyway, while not employed by the company in a programming capacity, and outside of company time, I created a PHP script to manage/verify form input. It uses an OOP approach, makes building user-input-based applications much easier, and I'm really proud of it.

I would like to release the script to whomever would want to use it (GPL, or whatever). I would also like to use it as part of applications that I'm developing within the company now.

By my interpretation of the GPL, I could make a non-distributed modification to use at work (as an employee) that would be protected by a NDA, as long as the company never tried to distribute it. I could then continue development on the GPL version as an independant programmer.

First off, is that interpretation correct?

Second...if I modified a GPL script that someone else wrote, I could submit the modifications as reccommendations for future versions...if I made a modification/bug fix at work on my own script, and "suggested" it for the GPL version, would that be completely shaky ground? Or if I didn't make the modification at work, and just modified the GPL version, and then downloaded the new version for work...

I dunno...I'm trying not to get screwed here. My main concern is that the company will see it as their property, since it was written by an employee of theirs. I'm already using the script for other commercial projects, so I can't transfer ownership of the script to the company even if I did want to.

MPEDrummer

Re: The GPL and a fuzzy line I'm walking...
 

Disclaimer: IANAL (yet), and I could be completely wrong...

...but in my opinion, yes that is correct. As long as you did not write the GPL script on company time, and as long as the company never distributes the modifications you made on company time, there are no violations. If the company does want to distribute the changes, it must be under a license compatible with the GPL (most likely the GPL itself), or else YOU could go after them for infringement. Of course, you might be fired too, so you might want to make sure it's all right with them that you are using GPL code in a company project, and I think that's where your problem is going to be.

This one is more questionable. If you made modifications on company time, and then go back and make the same modifications to the GPL version, you could be infringing the company's copyright on what you wrote at work. If you didn't write the exact same code, you might be able to claim that you didn't copy the code, but rather it's a different implementation of the same algorithm, but since it is the same person writing both versions, I'm not sure how that would fly. But I think you have the answer; if you want to distribute these changes, you should make them to the GPL version on your own time, continue to use the GPL version at work, and you shouldn't have any copyright problems.

Well, IANAL, (and am lacking sleep) but remember, for stuff you wrote, you control the copyright. If it happened before you were employed as a programmer at this company, you own the code. So what that means is that you can say, "This code is GPL, but company X can use it in whatever way they see fit" And this does not break any rights with anyone. You could even say, (if you have manager/boss that's somewhat open to the idea of oss), 'This code is GPL, but company X can use it however they see fit for x years"

Unless I'm completely smoking something strange, MySQL used something along the lines of the first example for quite a while, and still might for that matter. (you have to pay them to become a company X)

As for #2, as n0nsensical put it, "f you made modifications on company time, and then go back and make the same modifications to the GPL version, you could be infringing the company's copyright on what you wrote at work"

This is dangerous. Make sure you have something in writing that says you can do this before you do. If you seriously want to retain control over the project with no potential legal hassles at all, don't mod it at work, let them know that unless they are going to pay you to work on a GPL project, you will continue to add to it on your own time and retain control. It really comes down to you and how much you like OSS. :)

Cool, thanks guys.

I second the above. Just because you ALSO release the code under the GPL doesn't mean you can't release it under a more specific license to a specific party. You're the ONLY one with that right, though. I can't download your product, relicense it under a non-GPL license, and redistribute it.

What people are saying about being able to release under any license you choose is correct -- you can GPL the code, but also give it away under whatever license you wish.

However -- if you live in the United States, at least, it's highly likely that you signed a contract saying that anything you produced regardless of whether it was on company time or not is owned by the company. You may wish to double check this, because, if so, it would be illegal for you to GPL the code without the company's consent.