It depends on the license. You are just assuming that they are abiding by the terms of the open sources licenses while I am not assuming that. In fact, considering that people at Goldman Sachs think it is okay to purposefully delete attribution headers of open source software (as proved in court), there is no reason to think that they would abide by any of the open source agreements in these packages. There is definitely open source code that exists that specifically states that it cannot be used for commercial purposes. And there is some open source code that says you can use it however you want to, as long as there is attribution. And note that Goldman Sachs is guilty at least on this last count. Does an employee who betters an open source package and then wants to contribute that code back to that open source project sound like an individual that should be prosecuted? Seeing as I do not have 100% of the details, my inclination is to side with this individual rather than Goldman Sachs which has proven to be less than "pristine" when it comes to morality.
Bottom line is he did admit copying the code and as with all large companies he did sign a confidentially agreement, which prevented him from copying the code thus he is guilty even if he did have pristine intentions.
He's not being prosecuted for that (releasing the GS source code to open source), first of all. He's being prosecuted for stealing GS source code. And you absolutely do not have the right to release proprietary code developed on a company's dime to open source just because you have some lofty ideas about open source (again, he didn't release anything to open source, he simply stole the code for his own/future employer's use). Our legal system doesn't work on a "they stripped out the open source headers, I get to steal the software" basis. It's easy to be some kind of Robinhood fan until you're footing the bill to develop software that's stolen and Robinhood turns out to just be another selfish a-hole. If the developers of the open source software you allege was "stolen" by GS have a problem they're free to press charges and file civil suit. Until then there is no false eqivilancy with an employee who stole source code, and GS possibly (but we'll assume they did because we don't like them) using open source in violation of the license. And the guy is still a world class idiot to have taken this code, especially if as you seem to think it was mostly open source to begin with.
You are misunderstanding what I am saying. I never said he was prosecuted for that. The GS source code that he "stole", consisted of a lot of open source code that was "stolen" by GS in the first place (by stripping the attribution headers). I agree that you do not have the right to release proprietary code developed on a company's dime, however you do not also have the right to steal open source code, strip the attribution headers, and call it your own. If you think this guy is guilty, than Goldman Sachs as an organization is just as guilty. I hope those open source developers do file a civil suit but the odds are they have no money to do so and they are unaware they are being taken advantage of by Goldman Sachs. Frankly, I don't understand anyone who would defend Goldman Sachs in this situation. They are a reprehensible organization. By the way, Goldman Sachs shouldn't even exist now but thanks to our idiotic government, they got bailed out.
I'm a guy who pays people to develop software for my company. We use open source software in some of what we do (in accordance with their licenses). I'll defend the right of any company like mine, including GS, to take legal action against someone who steals code they and other employees of mine developed on my dime. I'll push back vigorously on the incorrect concept that I am somehow obligated to release my proprietary source code to open simply because I incorporate some open source software in it. In fact I'm not aware of a single major piece of open source code that lists that as a requirement in its license, can you list some examples of that? And I'll call complete and utter BS that there is some kind of equivalence between the damage done by me removing open source headers on software used internally (what, do I want to trick my own programmers into thinking this didn't come from open source so that I can accomplish what nefarious thing exactly?) and an employee stealing code and taking it to a competitor. Finally, it's clear from this thread that there are significant misperceptions out there about what is and isn't included in the vast majority of open source licences, hopefully we've cleared that up. By the way, here in the United States your or my personal feelings about a bailout that happened years ago or that a company is "reprehensible" has absolutely no bearing on the legality of an employee stealing from them in clear violation of the law and the contract they signed with the company. Thank goodness!
I think the whole open source/GNU licensing is taken on good faith unfortunately. Look at Linksys for similar case of not giving a fuk.
After doing some more research, I was incorrect in that the term "open source" inherently implies that the source can be used for commercial purposes (example discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9004908). There are open source licenses where if you distribute a product based on that source, then any modifications of the source that you made have to be published along with that product (i.e., GPL2 https://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.php). Did you read the Vanity Fair article? I'll give you another quote from it: This hardly sounds like an individual that deserves 7 years in jail. More like someone who is ignorant and naive. Again, I restate that I cannot believe anyone would side with Goldman Sachs in this matter as they come across as antiquated and paranoid. If anything, Goldman Sachs is the entity that needs to be prosecuted. And its past behavior is a basis for suspicion, regardless of what you say.
Reading the article is actually far scarier for a business owner in my position. To wit "Until Serge was sent to jail for doing it, Wall Street programmers routinely took code they had worked on when they left for new jobs." That's complete and utter crap. If I pay you to develop code for me it belongs to me and does not belong to you, both by common law and the contract you signed with me and everyone in the software industry knows that. Who the hell do these guys think they are, getting paid by a company to produce a product and then believing they own it and can take it wherever they want? Does the GM factory worker get to take some parts home from the factory floor because he built them and everyone knows GM took bailout money and are evil? It goes on to say "Every tech programmer out there got the message: Take code and you could go to jail. It was huge." Awsome! If they hadn't gotten that fundamental message yet then it's about damn time they did! Absolutely no sympathy for them doing something that is so clearly in violation of the law and their contract with the company, regardless of who the company is or how nice a guy the defendant is. You could say this guy was being made an example of and I'd say absolutely, and clearly someone needed to be made an example of in this industry if they really all thought that stealing code with impunity was OK. "As Goldman hadn’t permitted him to release his debugged or improved code back to the public—possibly in violation of the original free licenses, which often stated that improvements must be publicly shared". Again, this isn't what any open source license says at all. I have yet to see this mythical license which "often states" that, and if Vanity Fair has it they would have listed it instead of that purposely vague language. Lets use your GPL2 license as an example. First, internal use by a company isn't covered in GPL2 at all, it's triggered when you distribute it. Second, GPL2 is concerned about a third party copyrighting what was open source so that future users can't use it, and about third parties modifying open source with a buggy mod that then unfairly reflects on the original product. You fundamentally misunderstand the entire concept of open source if you think it's about requiring everyone who uses it to re-release their software built around its source code to open source. I'm pretty sure both you and the Vanity Fair people realize this, it just doesn't sound as sympathetic and they're counting on most readers not being familiar with the intricacies of this license. They then go on to say that what the guy stole clearly wasn't really that valuable, he left more valuable stuff, his intent wasn't to defraud GS... That may all be true, let's give the guy the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure he's a nice guy. I'm sure the GS guy's are sharks and a-holes. I'm sure lots of other guys did what he did and got away with it. All that in no way absolves him of violating the law he violated which couldn't be more obvious and cut and dry. As I've maintained from the beginning of this thread, the guy is a complete idiot who was paid a healthy sum by GS to do something for them and somehow felt entitled to steal that despite the fact that thinking about it for about 5 seconds would make it blindingly obvious to even the most obtuse geek that what he was doing was illegal and violated his contract. Is 7 years in jail appropriate? Probably not. Is painting him as some kind of blameless Robin Hood hero who deserves no punishment appropriate? Most definitely not. When you sink a significant sum into software developers to build software for you, I'm sure you'll come around to that viewpoint which happens to align nicely with U.S. law.
I never said that. Regardless of whether you are a business owner or not, it seems like you could use a good injection of compassion. Again, if this guy is guilty of anything (which is debatable), then Goldman Sachs is guilty of so much worse. If the article is true, then his intent was not malicious, unlike many things that Goldman Sachs has done and will do. Typical that the little guy goes to jail and Goldman Sachs gets a slap on the hand for all its dealings. A true capitalistic society would have allowed Goldman Sachs to fail.
It's not debatable at all, he was convicted in a court of law! My compassion is nearly unlimited for those who deserve it. Highly paid software developers who think it's OK to steal code from their employers are pretty far down the list of deserving people. When you're feeding your family based on software you pay your coders to write for you, I'm guessing you won't find the "compassion" in you to let them steal that code at will.