Not contradicting you, but just posting to invite someone to correct me if I'm wrong. If I understand correctly, the GPL specifically grants a license to distribute to anyone you please. However, in the case where the software was originally distributed to a company, an individual working at the company does not have a license (because it wasn't distributed to them specifically) and can not redistribute the software. Only the company can redistribute the software (though, having done so, they can't stop a recipient from redistributing the software).
It's one of the really subtle points of the GPL and easy to get wrong (which I'm inviting people to correct my interpretation ;-) ). I often wonder whether the AGPL would work the same way because the "distribute" clause in it is awfully vague, from my interpretation. Just giving me access to the software over a network requires giving a license, it seems. So if they give me access as an employee, I should also get a license... maybe...
It's one of the really subtle points of the GPL and easy to get wrong (which I'm inviting people to correct my interpretation ;-) ). I often wonder whether the AGPL would work the same way because the "distribute" clause in it is awfully vague, from my interpretation. Just giving me access to the software over a network requires giving a license, it seems. So if they give me access as an employee, I should also get a license... maybe...