🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <qhya9opagf.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>, Eric Smith wrote:
>Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
>> Yes, I know, but this completely ignores the people who actually work on
>> the code. Though it's perfectly ok to treat the corporation as a person
>> (which can demand the rights assured under GPL), the worker *also* is a
>> person, and no law in civilized countries (i.e. outside the USA ;-) can
>> revoke that fact. The worker gets the code, the worker gets the rights.
>> Plain and simple. No employment contract can change that without being
>> contradictionary to GPL paragraph 6.
>
>If the object code is installed on the corporation's computer, and the
>employee is directed to use the code on that computer in the course of
>his or her employment, it seems unreasonable to claim that the corporation
>has "distributed" the code to the individual, or that the individual has
>gained any rights to the code.
>
>If the individual worked for the Coca Cola corporation, and was "given"
>the formula for Coca Cola as a necessary part of his or her job, that
>wouldn't give the employee any rights to the formula nor reduce the
>formula's standing as a trade secret.

It would if the formula was attached to a license that DEMANDS that no one
who has it be limited in their distribution.