I have written and still maintain some GPL-licensed code in my

You should expect the firing your ass.

Have they distributed the code?

>>56061670
you should contact the fsf, and have a lawyer present at the meeting

at least record it. and post results here

>>56061724
This.
/thread

>>56061724
This, watch your own ass.

Other than that. You should probably try to explain to your boss that if this is propietary code, this other companies have basically stolen company assets and that they should, if they care, try to fight it in court to demand compensation or something.

Who knows, I've never worked for a company so I don't know how that works, but maybe you'll make some higher-up friends with this, if you are lucky.

>>56061670

So you have hacked company's servers, stole their code and published it online under GPL?

You are screwed.

plagiarism and license violation and completely separate issues

actually the fact they used your code without attribution is more of a violation than ABLOOBLOO THEY IGNORED TEH GPL

however the latter would be good for you if it ever goes to court, a company will be very willing to settle when the alternative might be the courts forcing them to release ALL their proprietary code as GPL as has been threatened in some cases before

anyway if you go on the war path know that it will be your last job in the industry as you will become toxic so make sure the "severance package" is worth it

>>56061783
He hasn't done any of these things. He said very clearly his company is merging, so he was probably allowed to look to it.

>>56061670
this: >>56061724

my suggestion, go talk to people in some related channel in freenode (it's IRC, if you don't know what it is). 4chan sucks for serious stuff

>>56061783
herp a derp

Stop being a whiny little bitch and deal with it. This is what you get for using muh epic open sores licences.

>>56061670
Get a lawyer, contact the FSF for legal tips.

>>56061796
I'm not sure if I can afford to "go on the war path".

>>56061783
Nah, my code has been up and maintained since late 2012. It first appears in their codebase in mid-2013. And they continued to copy stuff after that, they're only a few months behind my proper repository.

>>56061763
>>56061724
It's GPL code which was plagiarised.

>>56061719
They don't distribute the code, just binaries.

>>56061804
Ironically enough I was put on one of the other company's teams because they have a shortage in personnel and my boss knew I do the sort of thing that group is doing in my spare time.

Well, it turns out it was that group that was doing what I was doing in my spare time.

>>56061670
What are you using this software for? Is your/their product a website, distributed software or a service. These things matter. The second is where stuff gets sticky. The rest are less of a problem.

File: xrysalis.png (465KB, 942x908px) Image search: [Google]

465KB, 942x908px

All the people telling you to lawyer up are fucking retarded. So what, you MIGHT win like $500,000 tops. That's several years' salary BUT you also render yourself unemployable by suing your employer.

>>56061874
Binaries are distributions. If what you are saying is true about them using a GPL. codebase, they have blatantly violated the GPL and are open to litigation.

>>56061925
They're telling him to have a lawyer present for advice, not for suing

>>56061874
if they made money advertising the code as proprietary they're even more screw

do as >>56061724 says

also this >>56061936

>>56061925 is a faggot who knows shit about business

>>56061919
Theirs is distributed software doing some data analysis for chemists and plotting the results in a pretty way.

Mine is a command-line tool doing some of things their tool does. I made it when I was a grad student a few years ago and still occasionally do bug fixes or small updates.

Basically they ripped out my code to do the back-end of some of the stuff their GUI application does.

GPL is literally a Jewish trick.
>someone uses GPL code that is just out there, taunting to use it, practically nobody would notice once it's compiled
>someone takes the bait and breaches GPL
>FSF that's owned and ran by Jews can now sue breachers

And this cancer has spread around the globe. Soon everything will be GPL cutting software industry wages to rock bottom and Jew Stallman's Jewish henchmen will sue everyone and make trillions of dollars out of free labor.

Literally slavery and Jewish plot to enslave humanity.

This is a sticky situation. Don't make any threats, keep the conversation friendly but firm (don't be a pushover). You can easily get blacklisted from the industry if you decide to sue, so I wouldn't suggest that. >>56061763 suggestion is a good one. Let your boss know that they are using your company's assets without permission.

So who is the injured party if a GPL licence is violated anyway? Projects can have thousands of contributors.

Did they redistribute the projects with GPL code? Or is it all internal software?

>>56062008
>Let your boss know that they are using your company's assets without permission.

kinda limpwristed

the boss guy then says 'alright, so what'

what does OP reply?

>>56061992
Pretty much without the Jewish part. MIT license is better for people who want to produce truly free software.

>>56061992
Good bait.

>>56062014
No idea. I think someone said authorship is a separate issue?

>>56062023
Yes, it's software they sell.

>>56061724
I might write the FSF but I doubt I can arrange any help from them by 9 a.m. on Monday when my nearest meeting about this is.

I also don't have any experience with lawyers so I don't even know if I can get one on such short notice or how.

>>56062067
How many people contribute to your project?

>>56061992
a true jewish trick is using someone else's GPL'd code for commercial purposes while hiding the fact that it is Free.

>>someone uses GPL code that is just out there, taunting to use it, practically nobody would notice once it's compiled
>what is reverse engineering

>>FSF that's owned and ran by Jews can now sue breachers
FSF is not the owner of all GPL'd code, you fucking retard

>>56062008
>Let your boss know that they are using your company's assets without permission.
No, they're using his personal property (code) without permission.

>>56062067
Kek, what are the chances that you literally start working on a new team to only find out they have taken your code and violated it.

>>56062077
They one they copied code from? I'm the only contributor.

>>56062095
Well, like I said I mostly got assigned there because my supervisor knew I'm interested in the sort of stuff they're doing.

So maybe more likely than you'd think?

>>56062091
if it's Free why does anyone have the right to sue anyone else for using it and get compensated? if you set it Free and don't own it, what are you getting compensated for?

basically I'm saying things like GPL have no place in a civil law lawsuit

>>56062107
Oh ok then, so here is what you do. Tell the other company that you will waiver liability for your code being used under the wrong license, and negotiate to issue a separate different license to them for a fee based on earned commissions. There you go, legal problems avoided and you make some money on the side.

>>56062107
Get a lawyer, offer to sell them a license to use your code.

>>56061874
>I'm not sure if I can afford to "go on the war path".
You don't understand. The war path has come to you and you need to lawyer up to save your career.

>>56062163
What are you doing? There is a reason lawyers exists, let OP contact the FSF and let they do the litigation.

They are one of the most contending litigators for a reason.

>>56061925
Stupid american. The lawyer is not to sue, the lawyer is to avoid getting fucking fired for caring about the GPL. OP is going to be given a choice; stay quiet about the GPL code, or find another job.

>>56061992
all they have to do is leave the GPL license on it and distribute the source code.
Or you know, not steal someone else's code.

>>56062199
How will the lawyer help?

legit question, never dealt with lawyers

All this ignorance. /biz/ advice would be good here for once.

Just contact FSF OP.

>>56062199
bringing a lawyer will immediately escalate the issue

>>56062212
Protect your rights.
If you don't lawyer up they can just do whatever they want illegal or not.

>>56062227
Might try a /biz/ thread too.

>>56062227
>Just contact FSF OP.
I'm writing them but I don't expect they will get back to me by Monday morning.

>>56062229
He doesn't need to bring a lawyer to the meeting he just needs to talk to one to figure out what he should do.

>>56062212
The lawyer will help preserve the GPL code.
OP's company is in a LOT of trouble. The bosses will basically do whatever it takes to avoid facing the heat for what they've done, at the cost of the OP. The lawyer will allow OP to force the company to actually face the heat for fucking with the GPL, and actually either GPL their codebase to make it legal, or chuck it.

OP will be given a choice, keep quiet or find another job. The lawyer will help him find another job, by stopping the company from firing him, so OP can quit with good references instead.

It all depends on how much he cares about the GPL, if he puts himself above freedom then he doesn't need a lawyer at all, if he doesn't care that his company is breaking the law, he doesn't need a lawyer.

>>56062258
kek I doubt the middle manager OP will meet even knows what a GPL is

>>56062280
Once he understands that his company is basically on the shit end of copyright law he'll be a lot more desperate.

>>56062212
>Scenario 1 (Lawyer not present)
>you: You used my code illegally
>boss: So, you wanna keep your job right?

>Scenario 2 (Lawyer present)
>you: You used my code illegally
>boss: So, you wanna keep your job right?
>*you get a shit load of money when your lawyer recommends sueing*

>Scenario 3 (Lawyer present)
>you: You used my code illegally
>boss: plz no sue how much do you want
*you get a shit load of money when they bribe you to stay quiet*

Having lawyer is always better.

>>56062091
Then why do people let FSF lawyers handle breaches you fucking retard? Because GPL in itself is immaterial right and anything covered by it belongs to FSF.

FSF is a Jewish patent troll office + mafia combo.

>yes goi yeeesss have some freedom in your softwares yeeeesssss
>oh what's the matter goi someone used your code well let's get our lawyers ready heheh *rubs hands* just small fee to liberate it again hahe

>>56062297
yeah but basically OP has not much to gain from suing the company if I understand it right? If OP had a proprietary licence then they would be stealing from him and he could sue him, but if it's free software it's only the GPL being violated which has little to do with OP and hence he has little to gain from suing his employer

since OP has no reason other than FSF-loyalty and idealism to antagonize the company, I would expect the company to offer some incentive in exchange for keeping quiet, e.g. a raise

the problem is if OP accepts he pretty much becomes an accomplice, no?

>>56062299
it's free software not "your code"

the only problem is they violoated the licence

>>56061925
>render yourself unemployable by suing a criminal employer
yeah right. this guy would be a hero

>>56062345
>wanting a raise when he could actually be getting royalties for as long as the company uses the code

>>56062365
you're an idiot. it's his code regardless since he's the only contributor.

>>56062430
maybe to neckbeards on /g/

no sane employer will hire anyone with a history of suing their previous employers, even if they had done some iffy stuff

>>56062107
If you are the only author you can ask them to license your code in a proprietary license terms of your choosing

>>56062443
why offer royalties when OP could be satisfied with a raise?

that's the thing, if the guy OP will meet on Monday has at least half a brain, he will NOT threaten to fire OP, he will be extremely nice but will offer very little compensation unless OP bargains for more

If you copied MIT code this would not be an issue

>>56062471
how would they even know?

>>56062471
>a *software company* plagiarising code against its license and then selling it
>iffy

OP, was your code the main product of the other company? if so... why don't you start your own company and sue them to death?

>>56062502
>wanting a raise instead of a stable paycheck that he will get regardless of where he works

>>56062510
small world

>>56061670
Get a lawyer. Don't go alone.

>>56062077
>>56062365
>it's free software not "your code"
>the only problem is they violoated the licence
No it's his code. He holds copyright over it. The GPL is a licence enforced under this context; OP is licencing the making of copies of his software under certain conditions. He couldn't licence out the software if he wasn't the holder of said right.

>>56062244
Try to call them too for faster help.

>>56062520
retard, I'm not saying OP should ask for a raise

I'm saying they will offer him one and not even mention royalties

>>56062534
I got fired out my job and some other stuff, never prevented me from getting a new job

Since you are the sole author negotiating a separate license would probably be the best option for you.

Also definitely, try, if possible, to find professional advice, don't just blidnly take /g/'s word.

>>56061670
OP, if I were you, I would go in and say "it appears such and such has happened". Don't assign blame, don't make any definite statements. The issue isn't going away - you can sue them easily for at least 7 years or whatever the statue of limitations is, if it comes to that. Don't let them make you say anything further about the matter.

Chances are, they'll come back within days with either an offer or with proof that you're wrong. In the meantime you should contact FSF and get their advice.

>>56061670
What is the maximum liability for commercial copyright infringement again?

>>56062559
Listen to this anon, don't act hostile for no reason. And if you can, try to delay the decision for a few more days so you can plan better.

>>56062579
Doesn't it depend on how many people downloaded the software?

>>56062545
This. OP, just double license your software if they give you what you want. If you are the only author of those lines, of course.

>>56062559
Also, if they make you an offer, demand it in writing.

>>56062233
Fuck off tripfag.

Companies can use GPL code internally without having to release the source. If they distribute it as part of a product or allow outsiders access to it (i.e. contractors), then they're automatically subject to the whole license.

The license stripping is a bit iffy, but again if it's internal it doesn't mean a thing.

File: 4ED.png (11KB, 208x195px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 208x195px

>OP writes code
>put code as GPL
>company breaks GPL
Time to be a jew OP.

>>56062680
"Demand" is maybe a strong word - Just say "send me the details by email", and go back to work.

Just go with the FSF, they won against fucking Cisco.

For fuck's sake.

>>56062791
>Just go with the FSF, they won against fucking Cisco.
no they didn't

there was a clear clear cut case of Cisco's violations but it ended up as a slap on a wrist and a small settlement

>>56062821
*undisclosed amount of money

Cisco wouldn't want the amount to be known of course.

Go back to watch tv neet.

>>56061670
Sue them for big money!

Do it, be a Jew and live in luxury

OP, don't be rash and don't listen to the dumb teenagers ITT. As a person whose biggest work-related fear is license infringement, let me tell that your case is not clear yet. The GPL does allow distributing GPL'd code as binary, as long as customers are able to receive the source code upon request. Just finding that they have used your code means nothing yet. I am not saying they are right, and it seems highly likely that they DID breach the license agreement, but don't starting acting like an offended manchild. Go to the meeting with a reserved and professional bearing, and just let me tell you their position. Don't say or do anything unneeded. Then, you may start thinking about contacting the FSF.

>>56061711
/thread

>>56063000
You sound like at the other end of license infringement,

If you fear breaking the license, then don't. OP is very right into informing the FSF and the company has good reasons to be scared.

If they didn't went for easy money, the boneheads at the company wouldn't be at this situation.

>>56063070
See >>56061738

>>56061724
/thread

>>56063100
kek

>>56063100
>all that routing

>>56063078
>OP is very right into informing the FSF
Not saying he isn't, but certainly not at this stage. It would be premature and will worsen the relationship with his employer.
>the company has good reasons to be scared
Why do you think they are scared? Why do you think they broke the GPL? There's been no proof of that whatsoever.
>easy money
>implying implications

If anything, OP is an instigator for writing work-related GPL code in his spare time.

>>56063182
>breaking a license a winning money from it
>not easy money
although only OP knows but frm what he tell they did

>OP is an instigator for writing work-related GPL code in his spare time
>an instigator
just stop

sue the fuck out of them

if you're competent enough to be maintaining an opensource package that companies are ripping off, then there's no chance in hell you're getting blacklisted from the industry, that's fucking stupid.

sue them and start freelancing as a consultant if they want you to work on your own code they stole.

>>56061670
Email the SFLC. I think they work pro bono.

>>56063302
Yes they do.

Als this >>56063283

>>56063283
>if you're competent enough to be maintaining an opensource package that companies are ripping off, then there's no chance in hell you're getting blacklisted from the industry, that's fucking stupid.

kek in your dreams

companies like talent, but they'll take ten code monkeys over a problem employee with a history of suing their employers

File: what.jpg (64KB, 479x358px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 479x358px

>>56063182
>If anything, OP is an instigator for writing work-related GPL code in his spare time.

>>56063628
Says the license infringer.

A known talent is going to be taken over ten code monkeys. Going freelance is easy if he has the work.

>>56063814
listen, the people in charge of these decisions know very little about talent and a lot about not hiring people who rock the boat

I've worked in HR

>>56063840
Was expecting you said that, because no other people with less personal experience would say a fallacy like that.

You people should work more with the feet on the ground.

>>56063875
HR may suck but that's how it is and it's up to everyone else to deal with it

>>56063894
After HR fails freelancers get hired, so don't go telling lies.

Also the license infringement adds value to the programmer which other companies appreciate. Yours maybe not, but there is plenty who will.

Just because you department makes bad choices doesn't mean others do. Learn to read the market.

>>56063000
>The GPL does allow distributing GPL'd code as binary, as long as customers are able to receive the source code upon request

only so long as you explicitly give a written offer to share the code alongside the binaries

>>56063959
They used GPL in their program, but they haven't released it under the GPL license, so they broke the rules.

Viral licences are second only to patents in stifling innovation.

>>56064201
>implying proprietary code isn't worse than patents or viral licenses for innovation

>>56064633
It isn't, it's much better than either.

You have every incentive to reimplement the same thing better and become the competition, even if the improvement is very small.

If a GPL free solution already exists you don't have any incentive to create an improved proprietary alternative and don't have much incentive to make derivative of the free solution either.

So the entire thing and space around it is polluted and left at the mercy of neckbearded hobbyists.

File: pepe-the-frog-meme-2.png (111KB, 540x405px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 540x405px

And that's what happen when you go open source.

>>56064760
Nothing is preventing anyone from using the GPL code. Despite what people who don't know what they're talking about have said, using GPL code does not mean your whole project is now forced to be GPL. Just the bits that were GPL and your modifications to those bits. The only reason to not do this is stubborn refusal to acknowledge the GPL. (I've worked on a BSD project and working with that anti-GPL ideology was a little frustrating.

>>56064760
I would agree with you anon, but the best code doesn't always win, sometimes "blast processing" marketing is what wins.
You also have every incentive to make a better version than neckbeard hobbyists and monetise it somehow. The neckbierdiest of projects, loonix is GPL'd and I don't see Windoze or Applel sweating around it. Android is built on top of it and Google isn't hurting for money. Canonical is selling support for servers and Red Hat for military-grade programs, the U.S. Army is THE single largest install base for Red Hat leenix, likewise with the US Navy nuclear submarine fleet

>>56064963
>using GPL code does not mean your whole project is now forced to be GPL.

It does. If the binary contains even one line of GPL code, all the code used in the binary becomes GPL.

>>56065016
Nope.

>>56065027
Yes. What do you plebosaur think the LGPL was made for?

>>56065027
You are just trolling.

>For instance in 2008 the California Western School of Law characterized the GPL as: "The GPL license is ‘viral,’ meaning any derivative work you create containing even the smallest portion of the previously GPL licensed software must also be licensed under the GPL license".

http://www.newmediarights.org/open_source/new_media_rights_open_source_licensing_guide

>>56065016
Not only that, but it also extends to linking with other GPL libraries.

Even RMS doesn't deny it:

>In 2006 Richard Stallman responded in an interview that Mundie's metaphor of a "virus" is wrong as software under the GPL does not "attack" or "infect" other software. Stallman believes that comparing the GPL to a virus is an extremely unfriendly thing to say, and that a better metaphor for software under the GPL would be a spider plant: If one takes a piece of it and puts it somewhere else, it grows there too.

File: 1444870513584.jpg (32KB, 604x604px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 604x604px

>>56065027
Anon, >>56065016 is right. However he is conflating the disadvantages of GPL. As >>56065003 points out the military uses linux, but runs their programs _on top_ of a GPL licensed OS so they don't have to disclose jack shit about their source code.
The whole point of GPL is shit like this, not reinventing the wheel and not bending the knee to commercial entities.
Lol, sorry, but your intercontinental ballistic missile has to reboot for a windows 10 update.

>>56065003
All of the companies you mention have two things in common - large companies and a high barrier to entry in what they do.

GPL benefits the same people and encourages the same practices patents do and are almost as harmful to competition.

They are both supporting structures of cartels and business oligarchies.

>>56065202
>The whole point of GPL is shit like this, not reinventing the wheel and not bending the knee to commercial entities.

Yes, but if you add GPL wheel to your non-GPL carriage, the carriage becomes GPL. The passengers stay non-GPL though.

>>56065284
GPL only makes it illegal to not release your code on the same terms. It's there so people won't take code related under it and then release it on other terms that might mistreat users.

>>56065159
>>56065086

That is wrong. GPL liberates any code it comes in contact with even if they are just holding hands.

>>56065284
I don't know anon, I kinda like my free as in freedom OS, to me it seems that not giving any money to either of those companies, except the gubmint, is a pretty good thing.
I don't see how it encourages the same shit as patents. Patents practically gurantee that there will be a high barrier to entry. Say what you want about gentoo, the mess it is, but it wouldn't be possible if building on top of lunix would cost a gorrilion dollarydoos.

Okay, so what happens if I take code from several different sources, each published under different licenses, and combine them into one program?

Do all of the licenses apply to the program at once?

What if the licenses contradict each other, and one demands something another forbids?

>>56065291
even so its better to have the wheel to add to the carriage (with some restrictions) than not having a wheel because its proprietary

and the fact off the wheel being open source makes it a lot easier to see how it works and to make a different an better wheel for your carriage without the gpl so you can still sell the carriage and make your money.

so i don't see where the gpl can be harmful in any way. maybe not as good as MIT for the lazy ass people that just copy paste code and expect to be successful.

>>56065481

Depends on the licenses used. If they are incompatible, you are in violation.

>>56062471
This is retarded. I work in construction and people sue their employers all the time. Hell, if you get injured in pretty much any job they have to pay for your living expenses for the rest of your fuckin life. Most employers will not find it very likely that they literally stole intellectual property from you when they considering hiring.

>>56065720
pro-tip: construction is not software development

>>56065720
That's possible because of unions, which the software industry doesn't have, and the cartels in place in say Silicon valley have worked VERY hard to make sure their employees don't unionize.

>>56065675
Agreed anon. Too many Microsoft/Adobe shills in this thread.

kind of wish this would happen to me so I could jew them out of every penny

>>56061992

>taunting to use it
You don't have to use it. If you want to make proprietary software, don't use GPL code. If you need to do something that the GPL code already does, write it yourself.

>>56062014

It would likely be a class action kind of thing.

>>56062029

>Give us a check for (amount) and we'll give you a proprietary license to use how you please.
That'd be an easy answer.

>>56064963

You are thinking of the LGPL. The GPL forces everything it touches to be GPL.

So for another perspective that I guess OP doesn't have to care about...

How likely is it that the management even knew about this? Maybe it was just lazy devs doing that with their bosses none the wiser.

How likely is it that even if management knew they would deny it and throw their devs under the bus? How likely is it that they would succeed at that?

Not necessarily in this instance but in general, how does this sort of thing happen?

>>56062212
Dude, the other guys will have company lawyers. There is no justice, just business. You need a lawyer to level the playing field or they will walk all over you.

>>56062629
This. You could potentially make some bank from this if you bargain for dual licence and royalties, otherwise if they don't comply you get the FSF to fuck them up so that your software can be free as in freedom again. Don't accept their pay rise offer because royalties last for as long as they use it while pay rise lasts for as long as they use you.

Does GPL mean Gnu Plus Linux?

>>56063628
There's a difference between suing 10 employers for sexual harassment and suing a company found to be stealing your code who you don't even work for

>>56061670

YOU DUMB FUCK

what you should have done:
> gotten as much hard evidence of them using your code
> gotten a real ruthless jewish lawyer
> sue those freedom hating niggers
> settled out of court for a retarded amount of dosh

you should have contacted the FSF and asked them to get you a lawyer. talking to your boss about this is stupid, like talking to HR about something. HR and your boss are very unambiguously motivated to cover the company's ass. the boss isn't there to shield you from mistreatment.

the extent to which your boss is interested in your wellbeing is probably just that he/his superiors don't want to totally demoralize your colleagues by his mistreatment of you.

>>56061925

SO TAKE YOUR 500K AND EMPLOY YOURSELF!

Even when you spend your last cent in vegas on a transvestite whore, you still aren't even unemployable

>>56061670
sue the absolute ever living shit out of them and get a non shithole job

>>56067837
>The GPL forces everything it touches to be GPL.
GPL or compatible, right?

>>56062155
GPL is free with the small condition that you cannot restrict this freedom.

>>56061992
>people still think /pol/ functions as a containment board

>>56062155
Are you new here? Have you ever programmed before?

>>56062365
Why do you post when you clearly know nothing about this? Why are you being an inssuferable asshole about it as well?

>>56071797
What's compatible with GPL except the different GPL verisons?

>>56071797
No.

GPL can be included with GPL compatible code like the BSD/MIT licences, but that then makes the whole thing GPL-lincenced.

GPL is cancer, no way around it.

>>56073384
>GPL is cancer, no way around it.

GPL is freedoom.

File: haha.jpg (22KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x300px

OP here.

The Indian guy in charge of the plagiarized code was CCed (not by me, by my supervisor) to the whole exchange on Friday but didn't participate.

In my original post when I mentioned the plagiarism I also said as an aside that the plagiarized code is three months behind my repository and includes a bug which has since been fixed.

The guy in charge of the code just replied to that one e-mail. He did not comment about the plagiarism/licence violation issue at all. Instead he just wrote:

>Hi Anon,
>I fixed the bug!
>(link to commit)
>Regards,
>Pajeet

The commit is literally him copying my bugfix from my repo to theirs.

Tippity top kek.

>>56074088
(his name is not actually Pajeet)

>>56074094
No shit. But Pajeets, for fucks sake, just get them back to their shitting streets.

I hope you update us after your first contact tomorrow.
I want to know how it ends.

>>56074088
looks like they found their fall guy

>>56074257
Well he is to blame if he c/p'ed his code. That's like saying Micheal Brown was the fall guy for strong arm robbery.

>>56074291
Except Pajeet has superiors/supervisors who have clearly failed in their duties to supervise his ass.

>>56074311
>Be supervisor
>Manage multiple employees
>Delegate responsiblity to employee to get portion of code running
>Code works and passes unit tests.
>Assign employee to work on new code.
>Complete ad-infinium cycles until product/bug fix is complete.

Wow the management intentionally did it.

Now I think OP should be compensated for his code, but desu the management may not be at fault here.

>>56074088
Are you gonna lawyer up?

So they may try to give you some kind of offer for a proprietary license since it is your code (so you can choose the license).
Are you sure you didn't sign anything that gives the company mutual rights to your code since you're an employee? I know that universities have a habit of doing this, but companies may be doing it as well now.
Mostly you should log the transgression and seek compensation or some kind of deal to use your code. Up to you if you want to get the FSF involved (this would be a matter of principle vs. money, what's your price?)

>>56074370
If they can't handle the responsibility they shouldn't be in that position.

Everyone from the Pajeet up is at fault to a larger or smaller degree.

>>56065391
L-l-ewd

>>56061670
>using GPL
How about next time instead of being selfish, releasing it under a free software licence.

Congratulations, you won either a hefty bonus or a promotion; if you hand over your rights to the code.
Take the money and run. Fuck RMS, fuck GPL, fuck freetards.

While we're at it, Linux is violating the GPL too. It includes proprietary modules (binary blobs).

Someone call the cops.

>>56077949
t. cuck

So many cucks in this thread tb.qh

>>56074088
>The commit is literally him copying my bugfix from my repo to theirs.
They are balls deep in shit.

>>56074088
Keep us posted, OP. Let us know how the meeting goes. If this thread dies, please create a new one, just copy your story.

Thanks in advance.

>>56069196
Is this a fucking joke?

>>56068519
This

OP contacting the FSF probably violates some NDA he had to sign. Not a good idea.