I dont understand why people get so confused about GPL license rights etc.
Interesting slashdot discussion happening here;
"I am a recent graduate, and I've been working on my own on a project that uses GPL-licensed libraries. Later a university department hired me, on a part-time basis, to develop this project into a solution that they needed. The project's size increased over time and soliciting help from the open source community seemed like the obvious thing to do. - http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/05/11/0151201/Can-Employer-Usurp-Copyright-On-GPL-Derived-Work?art_pos=9
Best answer i saw was - http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1647586&cid=32166150
1. Alice starts a GPL project.
2. Bob hires Alice to write an extension to the GPL project.
3. During her employ (or before, it doesn't matter) Alice uses some GPL libraries written by Claire.
4. Alice leaves Bob's employ.
FACT 1: Bob owns all the changes Alice made while in his employ.
FACT 2: Alice had no right to distribute changes owned by Bob.
FACT 3: Bob is not obligated to distribute the changes.
FACT 4: As the GPL only relates to distribution, not use, Bob is free to use the software.
FACT 5: If Bob later distributes the changes without placing those changes under the GPL, both Alice and Claire can sue him.
It's not rocket science.