9 ms·
In which case, they could have been in violation if it was GPL code.
by iwr 16y ago
In which case, they could have been in violation if it was GPL code.
- wizardishungry 16y agoGenerally, you're only required to provide changes if you are distributing your modified program. This may have been partially addressed in GPLv3 in the form of an "application service provider" clause, but I don't recall
- azernik 16y agoI doubt they even fell under the "application service provider" clause; speed-trading software is usually used completely internally by a financial firm to make its own trades.
- steveklabnik 16y agoIANAL, but I think that's the AGPL, not GPLv3.
- cypherpunks01 16y agoNot necessarily, as GPL3 didn't close the so-called "ASP loophole". Since Goldman Sachs probably wasn't distributing any HFT applications, but just selling access to it or using it completely internally, they aren't required to make their modifications public. See http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2127246/difference-between-affero-gpl-and-gplv3 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2127246/difference-betwee... about the AGPL license which addresses the 'application service provider' issue.
- iuhjyftgrd 16y agoA bank with the proud history of Goldman Sacks cheating like that - unthinkable!
- gte910h 16y agoReally, what part? GPL doesn't force you you to publish, just to distribute source with all binaries.