
How to force disgruntled worker not to publicly disclose “GPL'ed code” - kioleanu
https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/147134/how-to-force-disgruntled-worker-not-to-publicly-disclose-gpled-code
======
nscalf
First off, completely disregarding the legal status of this, it is both
hilarious and encouraging to see this. Why? Because people too often seem to
forget that companies you work for actively are likely trying to minimize how
much you get from them, regardless of the value you give them. In this
situation, Francis is a key employee on the team (the poster says as much),
yet he has office politics torpedo a promotion. As far as the company training
goes, Francis is doing everything wrong. As far as how you should behave
towards a company that does not respect you or anywhere near your value, he's
doing a good job playing the cards he has.

I have no empathy for bad company policies or politics. In this situation, a
good response would have been for HR to tell Francis how valuable they think
he is to the company and that they were going to push through a different path
for the promotion, and then to actually do it. Francis likely would not be
acting this way without an obvious pattern of disrespect in the culture, and a
feeling of being used by the company. If he sees the company (HR) show how
much they value him and fight for him to be compensated more because of that,
he would likely back off his defensive and combative stance.

------
Miner49er
Some context that isn't immediately clear: this company is selling a compiled
version of the Linux kernel in some way. They are required to disclose their
source code if asked and make it clear their code is GPL'ed. They are in
violation of the GPL, since they are not doing that.

~~~
rurban
Only to their customers, not to the world. But most likely they are in
violation.

~~~
imtringued
The GPL license allows the customers to hand it over to the rest of the world.
I think this is overblown unless the code is containing secrets like API or
private keys but then they only have themselves to blame for disregarding
security.

------
seren
There is at least two entangled issues there, the first one is a human
resource issue, and the second one is a legal issue.

I got the feeling the person asking the question does not really understand
what GPL entails.

We lack some context but I am not sure that actually releasing the modified
source code _to their customer_ might sink the company. Likely a customer is
buying a device or some code but also some expertise and support for future
version, some client might try to use the modified version, but I am not sure
this would be the majority of the cases in the real world.

------
Nasrudith
Is it just what gets linked here or does "disgruntled" in an employer role
question on Stack Overflow usually mean "I am about to be ripped a new one for
entirely predictable reasons I failed to notice?".

~~~
finnthehuman
Calling an employee "disgruntled" is one of those words like calling an ex
"jilted". It's an attempt by a speaker to get you to side against the subject
of the story they're about to tell, even though the story will likely make you
side with the subject. When it's obvious that an employee/ex is acting rash or
unreasonable, the adjective is superfluous and left out.

~~~
Doxin
To be fair, describing the employee in the post as disgruntled doesn't seem
entirely unfair. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he is displeased and
discontented.

That said it's probably unnecessary to pre-label, they can let people come to
their own conclusions.

------
wooptoo
The GPL has been enforced by the FSF / Eben Moglen repeatedly and even
defended in court by other companies (1)(2).

To quote Moglen:

> Despite the FUD, as a copyright license the GPL is absolutely solid. That’s
> why I’ve been able to enforce it dozens of times over nearly ten years,
> without ever going to court. [...]

[http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.pdf](http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.pdf)
PDF

The claim however has to come from the copyright owner, not a third party that
attempts vigilante-style justice like the disgruntled employee.

The employee should signal the license breach to the original authors.

\----

1\.
[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/02/27/gpl_enforcement_goe...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/02/27/gpl_enforcement_goes_to_court/)

2\. [https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/first-us-
lawsuit-...](https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/first-us-lawsuit-to-
test-gpl-open-source-licence)

~~~
karmajunkie
Exactly this. Francis would be deeply in the wrong in any court in the US
(and, I presume, Canada) for unilaterally publishing their source code, even
if required by the GPL. They can be forced to do so, but only by the courts.

As for HR, they really should have handled this very differently. Ling should
have been fired along with Lee for disclosing his veto to Lee, who then
bragged about it. Francis should have been given the promotion he earned.

If I were in their shoes now, I'd give him the severance package he wants
unless he quits on his own—involutary termination of any sort should trigger
the package.

------
bjourne
If I was Francis I'd be so pissed off. The company fucked him over and now
thinks he is out of line for demanding compensation.

------
robertbalent
Seems like they have bigger problem than solving situation with their
employees:

> We are selling a product with a "custom linux kernel installed". Our
> engineers say that "most of the product is GPL code we've modified", and
> that since we are selling a product with this software in place, "we're
> shipping GPL'ed code"

------
spoonie
It’s my understanding that non-competes have no teeth in Canada — in the
software industry at least. Is there some except for
comp/electrical/mechanical engineers as may be employed at this company?

~~~
jrace
Correct. "These are generally only upheld in exceptional cases."
===[https://www.canadaemploymenthumanrightslaw.com/2018/02/emplo...](https://www.canadaemploymenthumanrightslaw.com/2018/02/employees-
non-compete-agreement-enforceable/)

Does not stop employers from trying...and most employees do not challenge it.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
Worth noting that employers can still try to enforce it via sending nasty-
grams to your new employer, which can definitely cause you _significant_
issues if your new employer isn't willing to take on the risk of being
involved in a non-compete lawsuit on your behalf.

~~~
em-bee
how would they get involved?

if the non-compete is invalid, and the new emoloyer gives me trouble because
of it, can't i also go after the new employer for that?

i mean, making non-competes invalid should protect me from that, otherwise it
would still reduce my chances to get a job

~~~
jrace
Still requires you to take an active role in defending yourself,and some
employers may not want the hassle.

~~~
em-bee
they can't avoid the hassle. if they terminate me they'll face a wrong
termination lawsuit.

------
Porthos9K
Francis shouldn't have negotiated. He should have immediately walked and then
exposed his former employees. You just don't tolerate this sort of
exploitation unless you approve of management taking advantage of workers.

------
faissaloo
Extremely based, I hope this Francis character shares the code

------
iutiuesrer
It looks like the manager was right and Francis wasn’t “mature enough” for
that promotion.

One thing companies overlook is employee loyalty. In hindsight, they should
have gotten rid of Francis and kept Lee.

Now they lost 2 engineers and maybe even the manager.

~~~
madhadron
> One thing companies overlook is employee loyalty.

Loyalty? Why would anyone have loyalty to a company unless the company has
shown significant loyalty to them first? And how would a company show loyalty?
I don't mean your team or manager covering for you when something comes up or
things like that. That should engender loyalty to those people. That is
different from loyalty to the company. I might go further and say that loyalty
to a company is wrongheaded. Loyalty to mission or ideal, sure. Loyalty to
people. Loyalty to the function in society that needs to be fulfilled in order
for society to work (garbage has to be picked up, sewers have to function).

But a company? It's an exchange of my time acting in their interests for their
money. A legal abstraction and corresponding rituals that we use in our
society as a unit of organization. It's like being loyal to your filing
system.

And after the nonsense Francis dealt with, it's hard to imagine why he would
feel loyalty to anyone involved in the direction and management of the
company. He probably should have chosen his coworkers that he used for
references more carefully, too.

~~~
goatinaboat
_Loyalty? Why would anyone have loyalty to a company unless the company has
shown significant loyalty to them first?_

Loyalty to a company goes hand in glove with equity participation.

