Why? I don't intended to copy my code from my employer's machines to personal servers just before I leave, do you?
The incident certainly gives me pause about working for them...
Goldman uses open source code but then strips off the open source license and replaces it with their own - thus changing open source code into "proprietary" Goldman Sacks code.
Sergey was not allowed to submit his open source code fixes back to the o.s. repositories because once G.S. violates the O.S. copy write, it is now magically "proprietary".
In order to keep his fixes he was sending himself code that contained modified/improved/fixed open source - along with actual G.S. proprietary code.
G.S. system was a "ball of rubber bands". Sergey was going to a new job where he would make a completely different system and had no use for Goldman's code.
The cop investigating this was unfamiliar with software For example; he thought that Sergey's use of (the source control app) "subversion" was obviously something um subversive. He basically believed everything that G.S. told him.
This (from another source) describes some of these items:
http://cryptonomics.org/2013/09/08/goldman-sachs-v-russian-p...
The question of G.S. violating the OSS copyright is also not clear; usually, you can only violate copyright if you distribute software without a license. I'm not sure if removing the license on internal copies is legal, but no OS license I know of - not even the GPL - required them to share the changes back. I don't see any wrongdoing by GS part vis-a-vis OSS licenses, and as an employee, it wasn't his choice to make.
Do I think the law is harsh? Yes. Would I do the same as GS? Certainly not.
But as far as I'm concerned, he's conduct was in clear violation of the trust put on him as an employee (as he admitted), and it wouldn't influence my decision to join GS.
That's the takeaway Goldman would like you to have -- that he was "making off with the crown jewels." Unfortunately, it was basically a concoction: turns out the code he took was quite innocuous, and offered no special business advantage.
Yet out of either incompetence or vindictiveness, Goldman proffered the line that he had taken the "crown jewels". And that he should be hauled to jail, and have his reputation ruined and his marriage destroyed for it.
Umm, no. It was the opinion of the court that ordered his conviction reversed, as well as of the court that rejected the appeal to have his charged re-tried. From WP:
On June 20, 2014, upon reviewing the evidence, Justice Ronald Zweibel published a 71-page opinion in which the court ruled that F.B.I. “did not have probable cause to arrest defendant, let alone search him or his home.” The arrest was “illegal,” and Mr. Aleynikov’s “Fourth Amendment rights were violated as a result of a mistake of law.”
Really now -- it's not too hard to find information about important events (before simply making up facts about them), these days. You should give it a try sometime.
But hey, if you're an honest person, maybe you'll be a good fit.
By the way, I'm not arguing for/against what happened to him once he crossed the line. I'm merely pointing out that he did knowingly cross a legal line, which as we know can get quite messy.
It seems you don't quite understand how our justice system actually works. We don't just put people in jail because we feel that they "did something wrong." We have to prove that their conduct violated specific statutes. The courts found that in Alyenikov's case, it did not. Not only that: even as alleged, it did not violate the statutes under which he was accused.
Also, please follow up with the others who are correcting you. You seem to be confusing the facts.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8609023
That's why its best if you use links for references in your claims. It's really starting to sound like some guy committed white-collar crime and got off on a technicality.
No, I'm just pointing out to you that the courts found that he did not commit a crime, and that the FBI acted too aggressively. What you do with that information is up to you. We certainly don't have to be on the same page about it.
Per the 2012 appellate court decision that freed him, "his conduct did not constitute an offense under either statute" for which he was charged. It's hard to find a clearer statement of innocence than that -- which is why the judge ordered that his conviction be reversed, and that he be immediately released.
I meant on the court order you mentioned.
Per the 2012 appellate court decision that freed him, "his conduct did not constitute an offense under either statute" for which he was charged. It's hard to find a clearer statement of innocence than that -- which is why the judge ordered that his conviction be reversed, and that he be immediately released.
You're confusing the issues. The 2012 decision was a federal court, the 2014 decision was a NY State court, where he was charged under a different law. The two are unrelated.
In a related note, the only reason he was freed in 2012 was because the system from where he copied the code wasn't developed for interstate and/or international purposes - it had nothing to do with the code being unimportant.
That was considered an oversight of the law, and Congress in response of his appeal has since changed it, so had he done the same now, he wouldn't have been released.
Maybe you should choose your words more carefully, then.
Furthermore, it's factually true - he hasn't been ruled innocent (or rather, not guilty) of the crimes he is accused as of 2014, which are not the same as those from 2012.
No, he did not try to "cover his tracks". He was clearing his bash history because it also had his password. I'm not a Linux guy so I don't know details.