SCO identifies code?
Bill Moseley
provided any details yet of exactly what was supposedly copied into
Linux from Unix System V. I then read this:
http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyarchives.asp?ArticleID=43982
-- quote --
The cameras flashed when SCO attorneys briefly highlighted on screen
alleged examples of "literal" copyright infringement and improper use of
derivative works of Unix System V code that appear in Linux 2.4X and
Linux 2.5X.
While it was difficult to ascertain the exact code being shown on
screen, attorneys pointed to exact copying of some code from Unix to
Linux and claimed that IBM improperly donated almost a million lines of
Unix System V code to the Linux 2.4x and Linux 2.5x kernel that infringe
on its Unix System V contract with SCO -- and SCO's intellectual
property.
SCO claimed that much of the core code of Linux including Non-Uniform
Memory Access, the Read Copy Update for high-end database scalability,
Journaling File System, XFS, Schedulers, Linux PPC 32 and 64-bit support
and enterprise volume management is covered by SCO's Unix System V
contracts and copyrights.
For example, 110,000 lines of Unix System V code for read copy update,
55,000 lines of NUMA code and more than 750,000 lines of symmetric
multi-processing code from Unix System V has made its way into Linux,
attorneys and SCO executives claimed.
-- /quote --
SCO owns XFS?
I assume most here agree it's absurd to think you can't have "free"
software? Isn't that what SCO is now claiming, that US copyright law
"supercedes(sic) the GPL" -- so you can't write "free" software?
--
Bill Moseley
mos...@hank.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Alex Malinovich
--snip
> I assume most here agree it's absurd to think you can't have "free"
> software? Isn't that what SCO is now claiming, that US copyright law
> "supercedes(sic) the GPL" -- so you can't write "free" software?
Welcome to the wonderful world of 'intellectual property' in the US. As
an example here:
My previous employer had a contract provision that stated that any and
all code I write while employed there was owned by the corporation. One
of the things I wrote there was a library for Visual Basic (I couldn't
help it! They made me do it! May RMS have mercy on my soul! :) which
would parse a text box for numbers and arithmetic symbols and perform
the appropriate calculations on it. No one else so much as contributed a
comment to this code other than myself.
Now, if for some reason, unfathomable as it may seem, I choose to write
a program in VB again and I use the same code that I used in the
library, and then release the program under the GPL, I would be in
violation of my previous employer's intellectual property rights and
would, therefore, risk making my entire program 'illegal'.
Theoretically, if I re-implemented that library in say, Perl, I still
MIGHT be in violation. (Thankfully it was all a dirty hack so I don't
have to worry about ever writing something that bad again. :)
IANAL, but this is how I've understood the law and, in particular, how
my former employer would most certainly interpret it.
--
Alex Malinovich
Support Free Software, delete your Windows partition TODAY!
Encrypted mail preferred. You can get my public key from any of the
pgp.net keyservers. Key ID: A6D24837
Jamin W. Collins
>
> Welcome to the wonderful world of 'intellectual property' in the US.
> As an example here:
>
> My previous employer had a contract provision that stated that any and
> all code I write while employed there was owned by the corporation.
My current employer tried the same tactic. I refused to sign the
paperwork until the wording was changed. Now, they own the code that I
write explicitly for them, nothing else. If I write a utility without
request from them (even if they later make use of it), it belongs to me
not them.
--
Jamin W. Collins
Remember, root always has a loaded gun. Don't run around with it unless
you absolutely need it. -- Vineet Kumar
Alvin Oga
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 07:51:00PM -0500, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> >
> > Welcome to the wonderful world of 'intellectual property' in the US.
> > As an example here:
> >
> > My previous employer had a contract provision that stated that any and
> > all code I write while employed there was owned by the corporation.
>
> My current employer tried the same tactic. I refused to sign the
> paperwork until the wording was changed. Now, they own the code that I
> write explicitly for them, nothing else. If I write a utility without
> request from them (even if they later make use of it), it belongs to me
> not them.
and that if its rewritten in another programming language, it is excluded
from the task of the company that hired ya
i put down right above my signature and date ..
"all code written, ideas and implementation belongs to me"
( i have all the legal rights to do with the "ip" as i see fit
( other than blatant copy and paste to the "gpl version"
( you/we/i have how many years prior coding experience ??
( prior to bumping into the new company that wants your skills
they dont like my modified clause... than i'll go work for another
company .. esp if that company is using linux in the first place
and treats it like its their own development
and i also always scratchout "i cannot be fired for any reason at
any time" ... i want specific reasons to be stated on the exit
interview if it comes to that point
- hundreds of fun clauses to add/subtract/modify .. fun stuff...
be careful of these landmines... it will blow up on you ..
c ya
alvin
Bill Moseley
>
> What's more extreme is the view that *any code* you write while being
> employed by them is their property. Even code you write in your spare
> time. I mean I think to some extent this can be defended especially if
> it's in the same field. Because you could slack off on your real work
> and do your version of the thing on the side for profit.
>
> Example the guys working at ebay start their own auction site (in direct
> competition with ebay) on the side and spend their spare time working on
> that. How moral is that? I mean that doesn't even have to do with
> copyright so much as common sense.
I can see where if you hire someone to create something for you, and you
pay them to do it then it's yours. People commission artists all the
time for private work. Clearly, there should be a way to protect your
investment in development. As Ebay you wouldn't want to pay programmers
to develop your code and then allow them to take that and compete. Not
very fair competition.
Unfortunately there's a lot of gray area. Programmers develop tools and
idioms for doing common tasks. Clearly that's something that belongs to
the individual programmer and not the company. If you work for one
company developing some network code, you will likely use the same
methods writing another program that is also network aware.
You can't train someone to be a chief for your restaurant and not expect
them to go on and cook in other restaurants.
What bugs me about SCO's claims is that, at the OS level, there may not
be that many different ways to do things -- especially when talking to
hardware. So code may look similar and thus some jury might see it as
the same.
> I mean copyright law may be evil, but at least it's consistent. (It
> looks out for the rich guys hiring people to write software.)
I thought it looked out for the lawyers.
Alan Shutko
> This makes a lot of sense. I mean if the FSF hired you to write a
> GPL program, they wouldn't want you to release a proprietary version of
> it after you quit working for them.
Believe it or not, I don't think they'd care. I haven't been hired
by the FSF, but I've signed the standard copyright assignment they
require to put your changes in their tree, and it explicitly grants
back rights for me to do whatever I want with it, including use it
commercially. (Of course, this only counts for stuff I wrote, not the
rest of the app.)
I believe that L. Peter Deutsch was allowed to use the Display
Ghostscript code he wrote in the non-GPLed version of GS (though, I'm
not sure). That was at least partly funded by the FSF.
--
Alan Shutko <a...@acm.org> - I am the rocks.
Song Title: I Don't Know Whether To Kill Myself Or Go Bowling.
Paul Smith
bs> This makes a lot of sense. I mean if the FSF hired you to write a
bs> GPL program, they wouldn't want you to release a proprietary
bs> version of it after you quit working for them.
Actually this would not be a problem since the FSF never "hires" anyone
to write code with that kind of employment contract. Whenever you write
GNU code it's always copyright to you: before the FSF will accept it as
part of GNU you must assign copyright to them. _BUT_, when you do they
always give you back a license to use the code in any way you wish,
including incorporating it into other, proprietary programs or releasing
it under other licenses.
Regardless, as long as you rewrote it from scratch, without copying the
GPL'd code, then it's not copyright infringement. The problem is
_PROVING_ you wrote it from scratch. If you've been exposed to the code
and your code comes out looking the same then there's an assumption that
you've (at least subconciously) copied the code. Only if you can show
you've never been exposed to the original are you safe.
bs> Or another example, Microsoft has said they will stop supporting
bs> outlook express. It's dead and gone. Now imagine all the guys who
bs> worked on it decided to GPL the program.
I think you're missing Alex's point. He was not saying it was bad that
he couldn't take the code he wrote for some company and do anything he
wanted with it (at least that's not what I think he was saying).
He's saying that, even though he no longer has that code anymore, if he
were to rewrite, from scratch, without referencing the old code,
something that did the same thing, his employer would have a case about
it.
Note that in the U.S., at least, there are laws protecting people
related to this: there's an expiration on this kind of thing.
Otherwise, you could never switch jobs to another employer in the same
field of computing and work on similar systems, because you'd be
infringing on your original employer's copyright!
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Smith <psm...@nortelnetworks.com> HASMAT--HA Software Mthds & Tools
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
John Hasler
> What bugs me about SCO's claims is that, at the OS level, there may not
> be that many different ways to do things -- especially when talking to
> hardware.
If there is only one way to do it code that does so does not get copyright
protection. If there are only a few ways to do it a defense of independent
invention becomes plausible.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
Bijan Soleymani
> Bijan Soleymani <bi...@psq.com> writes:
>
> > This makes a lot of sense. I mean if the FSF hired you to write a
> > GPL program, they wouldn't want you to release a proprietary version of
> > it after you quit working for them.
>
> Believe it or not, I don't think they'd care. I haven't been hired
> by the FSF, but I've signed the standard copyright assignment they
> require to put your changes in their tree, and it explicitly grants
> back rights for me to do whatever I want with it, including use it
> commercially. (Of course, this only counts for stuff I wrote, not the
> rest of the app.)
>
> I believe that L. Peter Deutsch was allowed to use the Display
> Ghostscript code he wrote in the non-GPLed version of GS (though, I'm
> not sure). That was at least partly funded by the FSF.
From what I've read on the FSF website their position is that they won't
accept any submissions unless they are:
a) public domain
b) copyright released to the FSF
I don't know the specifics I haven't given them code, that's what they
say in their docs. Now maybe they keep the copyright and give the
programmer a license to do whatever they want, *but* they definately
keep the copyright, *if* what they're saying is true at all.
The reason being that if they don't own all the code on their software
they believe it can undermine any possible court case. That is a big
reason why GNU emacs won't accept some code from Xemacs because they
won't sign over the copyright. If the FSF really allowed such liberal
usage I doubt it would either serve the FSF's stated purpose to help
them out in court, or whether so many people would hesitate to hand them
their code.
Again, I haven't dealt with the FSF so I can't say for sure, but at
least in certain cases, emacs and gcc, they say that they won't accept
code that they don't have the copyright on. They say that they accept
public domain contributions if they are large but that they prefer
having copyright attributed to the FSF so that they can defend in court.
Bijan
Paul Smith
bs> From what I've read on the FSF website their position is that they won't
bs> accept any submissions unless they are:
bs> a) public domain
bs> b) copyright released to the FSF
You mean either (a) or (b), of course. That's correct.
bs> I don't know the specifics I haven't given them code, that's what
bs> they say in their docs. Now maybe they keep the copyright and give
bs> the programmer a license to do whatever they want,
Yes, that's exactly it. They give you a non-restricted license to use
the code you wrote any way you want. But, you no longer have copyright
to it.
bs> The reason being that if they don't own all the code on their
bs> software they believe it can undermine any possible court
bs> case. That is a big reason why GNU emacs won't accept some code
bs> from Xemacs because they won't sign over the copyright.
Not quite: it's true that they won't accept XEmacs code due to copyright
issues, but I don't think it's a matter so much of XEmacs saying they
won't do it, as that in the XEmacs code it's not clear who has copyright
and tracking down all the people that _might_ have copyright and getting
them to sign has proved too daunting for the ROI.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Smith <psm...@nortelnetworks.com> HASMAT--HA Software Mthds & Tools
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
Paul Smith
jh> Bill Moseley writes:
>> What bugs me about SCO's claims is that, at the OS level, there may
>> not be that many different ways to do things -- especially when
>> talking to hardware.
jh> If there is only one way to do it code that does so does not get
jh> copyright protection. If there are only a few ways to do it a
jh> defense of independent invention becomes plausible.
Also, it's not good enough to simply have similar code. You have to
show that the person had access to the original code and so had an
opportunity to copy it.
Copyright is not patents: in copyright you actually have to have copied
the original. In patents you don't: even if I produced the same thing
completely independently I still can't use it without your permission if
you have a patent on it.
IANAL, of course.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Smith <psm...@nortelnetworks.com> HASMAT--HA Software Mthds & Tools
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
Alex Malinovich
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 10:21:37PM -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
--snip--
> > I think you're missing Alex's point. He was not saying it was bad that
> > he couldn't take the code he wrote for some company and do anything he
> > wanted with it (at least that's not what I think he was saying).
> > He's saying that, even though he no longer has that code anymore, if he
> > were to rewrite, from scratch, without referencing the old code,
> > something that did the same thing, his employer would have a case about
> > it.
>
> that if he wrote a program that reused the library he wrote for them,
> that that would make his whole program illegal or something. Later he
> mentionned rewriting in perl (and that maybe it might still be a
> problem).
What I meant to say was that if I re-wrote that same library from
scratch without any major changes, and then used it, it could
potentially make the entire application illegal. Of course, removing it
would fix that problem in all likelyhood. Unfortunately, the case with
the Linux kernel isn't nearly so simple.
Someone else mentioned that if I re-implemented it in another language I
would be ok, so I guess that rewriting in Perl wouldn't expose me to any
negative repercussions.
> Of course there are. They protect the person from writing similar
> software but they don't allow them to use the code they've written for
> their employer without the employer's consent.
There are some extremely restrictive, but hopefully unenforceable,
contract clauses out there which claim ownership of ALL code produced
while employed by that company, whether it's for company use or not. If
I happen to go home and contribute code to the Linux kernel one night
after work, my employer could now claim that Linux was infringing on its
intellectual property rights. Scary eh? Thankfully, I've never heard of
anyone even TRYING to enforce a clause such as this, much less succeed.
Though I have personally SEEN the clause on a number of occasions.
p.s. This list goes to my primary mailbox, so no need to CC me on
replies.
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 07:51:00PM -0500, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> (Thankfully it was all a dirty hack so I don't
> have to worry about ever writing something that bad again. :)
The willingness to make closed source crap due to lack of
accountability is one good reason to avoid closed source software.
Alex demonstrates the point well.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' : proud Debian admin and user
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/QbqhsClmdIs2Ki8RAgV2AJ0SxMEGL8ZaJfHboUtDm0ODC3vdCACfc0Lz
BK43quuyj2HFE0yYLGdRCTs=
=SpU1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 08:56:47PM -0500, Alan Shutko wrote:
> Believe it or not, I don't think they'd care. I haven't been hired
> by the FSF, but I've signed the standard copyright assignment they
> require to put your changes in their tree, and it explicitly grants
> back rights for me to do whatever I want with it, including use it
> commercially. (Of course, this only counts for stuff I wrote, not the
> rest of the app.)
That's the FSF saying "We Care." They're all about removing limits,
and this is along that line.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' : proud Debian admin and user
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/QcVUsClmdIs2Ki8RAtxqAJ9mzikjHOhHPIPFY2OlAJDOQomoRgCcD+qf
UIEpi2kRENr5TcFSroFahvw=
=JW6G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mark
>
> From what I've read on the FSF website their position is that they won't
> accept any submissions unless they are:
> a) public domain
> b) copyright released to the FSF
>
> I don't know the specifics I haven't given them code, that's what they
> say in their docs. Now maybe they keep the copyright and give the
> programmer a license to do whatever they want, *but* they definately
> keep the copyright, *if* what they're saying is true at all.
>
Maybe I'm missing something, but you seem to have changed your
position somewhat. If the FSF have the copyright to code, then it
is theirs, certainly, and they can determine what should be done with
it. In this instance, they apply the GPL, and anyone can read the
GPL. If you get GPLed code, you can change it and use it if you
want to with no obligation to do anything else[1], but yes, they still
own the copyright to their bit, and you have the copyright to your
bit.
[1] unless you re-distribute it, in which case you have to also
hand out the source to your changes, but you retain ownership, ie.,
copyright to, your bits.
--
Mark Kent
Mark
>
> GPL program, they wouldn't want you to release a proprietary version of
> it after you quit working for them.
>
Why would they care? They would have their GPLed version, if you
choose to write a closed version, that's your choice.
I think you should probably let the FSF speak for themselves.
--
Mark Kent
cr
(snip)
>
> IANAL, but this is how I've understood the law and, in particular, how
> my former employer would most certainly interpret it.
I've just realised what IANAL means. "I am not a lawyer".
I thought it meant "I am not a LIAR".
Hmmmm. Is there a difference? ;)
cr
Alex Malinovich
> On Tuesday 19 August 2003 12:51, Alex Malinovich wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> >
> > IANAL, but this is how I've understood the law and, in particular, how
> > my former employer would most certainly interpret it.
>
> I've just realised what IANAL means. "I am not a lawyer".
> I thought it meant "I am not a LIAR".
>
> Hmmmm. Is there a difference? ;)
Of course! Liars are your ordinary, garden-variety liars. Lawyers, on
the other hand, go to liar... I mean lawyer, school for years to become
experts at it :)
Alex Malinovich
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 07:51:00PM -0500, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> > (Thankfully it was all a dirty hack so I don't
> > have to worry about ever writing something that bad again. :)
>
> The willingness to make closed source crap due to lack of
> accountability is one good reason to avoid closed source software.
> Alex demonstrates the point well.
Not sure if that's an (well-deserved) insult (against my pathetic
library), or praise (at pointing out the library) or both. :) Either
way, I agree completely. :)
cr
> On Tue, 2003-08-19 at 02:53, cr wrote:
> > On Tuesday 19 August 2003 12:51, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > > IANAL, but this is how I've understood the law and, in particular, how
> > > my former employer would most certainly interpret it.
> >
> > I've just realised what IANAL means. "I am not a lawyer".
> > I thought it meant "I am not a LIAR".
> >
> > Hmmmm. Is there a difference? ;)
>
> Of course! Liars are your ordinary, garden-variety liars. Lawyers, on
> the other hand, go to liar... I mean lawyer, school for years to become
> experts at it :)
Well I did have SCO's legal team in mind when I wrote that :)
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 03:50:36AM -0500, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> Not sure if that's an (well-deserved) insult (against my pathetic
> library), or praise (at pointing out the library) or both. :) Either
> way, I agree completely. :)
You know, it never really occurred to me which it is either...
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' : proud Debian admin and user
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/QgCmsClmdIs2Ki8RAmC6AJ4sd7RRqK4qpoys2iGIaGwzdHBQIACghWud
HAdr3Xplu3rjGo9i/+zkLBc=
=CtL/
Paul Smith
>> Actually this would not be a problem since the FSF never "hires"
>> anyone to write code with that kind of employment contract.
>> Whenever you write GNU code it's always copyright to you: before
>> the FSF will accept it as part of GNU you must assign copyright to
>> them. _BUT_, when you do they always give you back a license to
>> use the code in any way you wish, including incorporating it into
>> other, proprietary programs or releasing it under other licenses.
bs> As I said in another message, at least for some packages (emacs
bs> and gcc) it is the FSF's stated position that they want copyright
bs> assignments or code in the public domain. I don't know anything
bs> further than that about the matter.
It so happens I know a lot about it, from personal experience, and what
I'm saying is that this is true for _all_ software that is copyright by
the FSF, not just Emacs and GCC. They will not accept any non-trivial
code unless you assign copyright to it, and they will always give you
back an unrestricted license to use whatever you contributed.
Alan Shutko
> From what I've read on the FSF website their position is that they won't
> accept any submissions unless they are:
> a) public domain
> b) copyright released to the FSF
Yes. But as I mentioned in my previous post, when you sign the FSF
copyright assignment form, they grant back to you a perpetual,
non-exclusive, irrevokable right to use the code you are assigning
them for any purpose you want.
My assignment is on file somewhere at home, but I suppose I could dig
it up and excerpt it for you.
--
Alan Shutko <a...@acm.org> - I am the rocks.
I'd rather be monkeywrenching.
Alan Shutko
> Not quite: it's true that they won't accept XEmacs code due to copyright
> issues, but I don't think it's a matter so much of XEmacs saying they
> won't do it, as that in the XEmacs code it's not clear who has copyright
> and tracking down all the people that _might_ have copyright and getting
> them to sign has proved too daunting for the ROI.
Exactly. There have been a number of cases where things moved from
XEmacs to Emacs when it was feasible to get copyright assignments,
and I know a number of the main XEmacs maintainers have signed papers.
It's just not always feasible to do so. And in some cases, even if
it would be feasible to do so, the implementation would be so much
different than the implementation in Emacs that it needs to be
rewritten anyway (ie, internal redisplay stuff).
--
Alan Shutko <a...@acm.org> - I am the rocks.
Crow: Sven? * Tom: Ya, Ole?
Jamin W. Collins
>
> You can apply this to any case where the employee is writing software
> in their spare time which is very similar to what they're doing at
> work.
That doesn't matter. If the employer doesn't like the employee's
performance, they can fire them. However what that employee does on
their time is theirs. I work for a PBX vendor, that doesn't mean that
they can in any way stop me from working on another PBX product on my
time. Simply put, what I do on their time is theirs, what I do on mine
is mine. I won't sign a contract giving any employer anything else.
> I have this list filtered into a seperate box, so I do like it if
> people CC me, there are so many messages that I might miss otherwise
> miss a reply.
There are headers you can set that most reasonable MUAs will respect
that will effect this for you automatically (search for Mail-Followup-To)
--
Jamin W. Collins
Linux is not The Answer. Yes is the answer. Linux is The Question. - Neo
iain d broadfoot
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 08:43:21AM +0100, Mark wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 09:33:03PM -0400, Bijan Soleymani wrote:
> > >
> > > This makes a lot of sense. I mean if the FSF hired you to write a
> > > GPL program, they wouldn't want you to release a proprietary version of
> > > it after you quit working for them.
> > >
> >
> > Why would they care? They would have their GPLed version, if you
> > choose to write a closed version, that's your choice.
>
This is broken logic.
The FSF would have nothing to lose from a closed version of a GPL piece
of software being developed.
If GPL'd(GPLed? which is less stoopid?) _code_ was used, that'd be a
different issue though.
iain
--
wh33, y1p33 3tc.
"If sharing a thing in no way diminishes it, it is not rightly owned if it is
not shared." -St. Augustine
Jamin W. Collins
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 10:34:35AM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> >
> > That doesn't matter. If the employer doesn't like the employee's
> > performance, they can fire them. However what that employee does on
> > their time is theirs. I work for a PBX vendor, that doesn't mean
> > that they can in any way stop me from working on another PBX product
> > on my time. Simply put, what I do on their time is theirs, what I
> > do on mine is mine. I won't sign a contract giving any employer
> > anything else.
>
> interest. The example I gave of ebay employees starting their own
> auction site is that sort of example.
And a conflict of interest can be handled by the employer firing the
employee, that's all that's needed. As long as I don't use code written
for them, either by me on their time or someone else, I'm free to do
what I want on my time. If code written for them is used, it's theft,
plain and simple.
The fact that I do X for my employer doesn't mean I can't do X (for me
or anyone else) on my time. I simply can't do the exact same X for
both.
> Cool thanks, will do. Btw when I reply to you I end up with my mail
> being to debian-user and no CC to you, is that because of this header?
> If so does this mean I don't have to worry about sending CCs to people
> who don't want them?
If they set the header correctly and your mailer honors the header when
set, yes that's exactly what it means.
--
Jamin W. Collins
This is the typical unix way of doing things: you string together lots
of very specific tools to accomplish larger tasks. -- Vineet Kumar
Steve Lamb
"Jamin W. Collins" <jcol...@asgardsrealm.net> wrote:
> And a conflict of interest can be handled by the employer firing the
> employee, that's all that's needed. As long as I don't use code written
> for them, either by me on their time or someone else, I'm free to do
> what I want on my time. If code written for them is used, it's theft,
> plain and simple.
This feeds into the "Code is art" argument that floats around. I dunno
about anyone else but I found a particular thing written by one of my favorite
authors applicable to me. J. Michael Straczynski, most famous for Babylon 5,
has often stated in newsgroups postings that he cannot not write. He needs to
write, to get the ideas out. This sentiment is also echoed by Neil Gaiman of
Sandman fame in a recent book of his, Smoke and Mirrors. He describes how
often he will write a story just to get it out of his head.
Sometimes I just need to code. Some program gets stuck in my head and
until I at least make the effort to get it to work, to code it in some manner,
I am hard pressed to do little else. That is one of my creative outlets. It
may not be one that many people understand but there it is. I feel and others
have expressed that a lot of programmers are the same way. Code is art. To
many it is a form of self-expression through creation.
So do you think that any artist would sign on and say that x type of work
is owned, whole or in part, by the company regardless of whether or not the
work was done for that copy or on their own?
Granted DC Comics owns the copyright for Sandman and Warner Brothers owns
the copyright for Babylon 5 so one can argue that if Neil Gaiman or JMS write
stories in those universes they can be considered property of the companies
that own them. But the larger argument of th genre cannot be made. IE, JMS
still can (and does) write science fiction even though that may compete with
the WB property Babylon 5 which is science fiction. He can't call it Babylon
5 or relate it to Babylon 5 but he can write it, sell it, whatever even if it
were during the time he was working for WB's project provided it was on his
own time.
It is the same principle here. If an author working on eBay (to keep with
the example) goes on to found a competing on-line auction site as long as
there is no code share and none of the work was done on eBay's time then eBay
has no claim as long as he doesn't call it eBay. IE eBay = title, auction
site = genre.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
| -- Lenny Nero - Strange Days
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Bijan Soleymani
> * Bijan Soleymani (bi...@psq.com) wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 08:43:21AM +0100, Mark wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 09:33:03PM -0400, Bijan Soleymani wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This makes a lot of sense. I mean if the FSF hired you to write a
> > > > GPL program, they wouldn't want you to release a proprietary version of
> > > > it after you quit working for them.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Why would they care? They would have their GPLed version, if you
> > > choose to write a closed version, that's your choice.
> >
> > If they didn't care about closed version they wouldn't use the GPL.
>
> This is broken logic.
>
> The FSF would have nothing to lose from a closed version of a GPL piece
> of software being developed.
It's not nothing. Let's say half the users use the FSF/GPL version and
half use the closed version. The FSF has just lost half its users. By
the FSF's theory half the users have lost their freedom.
> If GPL'd(GPLed? which is less stoopid?) _code_ was used, that'd be a
> different issue though.
Agreed that is a different issue. I don't mean to speak for the FSF
again but I can't see how they wouldn't prefer for there not to be a
closed version. I mean the whole essence of the FSF seems to be to make
Free Software, and encourage people to make Free Software.
Bijan
John Hasler
> If code written for them is used, it's theft, plain and simple.
No. It's copyright infringement.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Rich Puhek
Steve Lamb wrote:
>
> So do you think that any artist would sign on and say that x type of work
> is owned, whole or in part, by the company regardless of whether or not the
> work was done for that copy or on their own?
>
If they did, that would be their own fault, wouldn't it? It also
wouldn't be the first time a starving artist took a deal that turned out
to be not so beneficial (think of most of the VH1 "Behind the Music"
specials, or the Prince fiasco of the early 90's). Actually, when was
the last time you saw a rock star tell a record label "you know, I wrote
this song on my own time, so I don't think you really own the rights to it"?
> Granted DC Comics owns the copyright for Sandman and Warner Brothers owns
> the copyright for Babylon 5 so one can argue that if Neil Gaiman or JMS write
> stories in those universes they can be considered property of the companies
> that own them. But the larger argument of th genre cannot be made. IE, JMS
> still can (and does) write science fiction even though that may compete with
> the WB property Babylon 5 which is science fiction. He can't call it Babylon
> 5 or relate it to Babylon 5 but he can write it, sell it, whatever even if it
> were during the time he was working for WB's project provided it was on his
> own time.
>
Then apparently, JMS is not forbidden to do so by contract. If he signed
a contract that stated he would not do ANY Sci-Fi writing for any other
bodies, then he would not be able to write, sell, or whatever, even on
his own time. This is an assumption, however, based on your observation
that he continues to write science fiction. We don't know for sure if
he's contractually forbidden to write science fiction unless we have a
copy of his contract :-)
> It is the same principle here. If an author working on eBay (to keep with
> the example) goes on to found a competing on-line auction site as long as
> there is no code share and none of the work was done on eBay's time then eBay
> has no claim as long as he doesn't call it eBay. IE eBay = title, auction
> site = genre.
>
Again, this assumes that the author working on eBay did not sign a
noncompete contract. If he was a key developer, I would not be surprised
if eBay's contract stipulated that should the author leave eBay, that he
not work for any other online auction sites (at least for a period of
time, or within a geographic area). It's fairly common practice in
different industries (heck, I can't talk to my old insurance agent for
another couple of months, since he had a noncompete signed with his old
insurance company).
The arguments made so far are putting words into employment contracts,
or assuming that no contract exists. IANAL, but it seems that there are
several questions here:
1) Did the employee sign a contract?
no: It's likely that the employee retains ownership of everything done
on their own time, with possible IP exceptions, depending on copyright
law, and IP laws of their state.
Yes:
1a) did the contract contain provisions regarding ownership of
intellectual property, inventions, copyrights, etc?
If the contract did, it is likely that in signing the contract, the
employee VOLUNTARILY AGREED that any inventions, code, etc. are the
property of their employer, even if done on their own time.
2) What do state and federal laws dictate in the absence of a contract?
3) Can a contract impose ownership restrictions even if state and
federal law do not?
4) Can/do state and/or federal law place limits upon what IP, code,
copyright, etc. rights may be contractually transferred to a company as
part of an employment contract?
--Rich
_________________________________________________________
Rich Puhek
ETN Systems Inc.
2125 1st Ave East
Hibbing MN 55746
tel: 218.262.1130
email: rpu...@etnsystems.com
_________________________________________________________
Steve Lamb
Rich Puhek <rpu...@etnsystems.com> wrote:
> Steve Lamb wrote:
> > So do you think that any artist would sign on and say that x type of
> > work is owned, whole or in part, by the company regardless of whether or
> > not the work was done for that copy or on their own?
> Actually, when was the last time you saw a rock star tell a record label
> "you know, I wrote this song on my own time, so I don't think you really own
> the rights to it"?
All the time. Musical artists have been known to write things on their
own time and release them later under a different label or independently. The
studios only own what the artists have granted them at the time. What they
wrote in their spare time is theirs until they turn it over.
> Again, this assumes that the author working on eBay did not sign a
> noncompete contract. If he was a key developer, I would not be surprised
> if eBay's contract stipulated that should the author leave eBay, that he
> not work for any other online auction sites (at least for a period of
> time, or within a geographic area). It's fairly common practice in
> different industries (heck, I can't talk to my old insurance agent for
> another couple of months, since he had a noncompete signed with his old
> insurance company).
Which largely doesn't apply when it comes to such soft media as the arts
and programming. If an insurance agent strikes out on his own and takes his
client base from his previous employer he has deprived that employer of
revenue. He must create a new client list for himself. If an author
(programmer, etc) strikes out on his own he does not take anything with him.
While he cannot revisit the material that is copyrighted by another entity
nothing prohibits him from creating new material.
> 1a) did the contract contain provisions regarding ownership of
> intellectual property, inventions, copyrights, etc?
> If the contract did, it is likely that in signing the contract, the
> employee VOLUNTARILY AGREED that any inventions, code, etc. are the
> property of their employer, even if done on their own time.
You mean like you agreeing to the Code of Conduct of the lists for Debian
yet violating that Code of Conduct? See:
<http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/>, 9th item in the Code of Conduct.
Michael D Schleif
> > If the contract did, it is likely that in signing the contract, the
> > employee VOLUNTARILY AGREED that any inventions, code, etc. are the
> > property of their employer, even if done on their own time.
>
> You mean like you agreeing to the Code of Conduct of the lists for Debian
> yet violating that Code of Conduct? See:
> <http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/>, 9th item in the Code of Conduct.
<http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct>
``When replying to messages on the mailing list, do not send a carbon
copy (CC) to the original poster unless they explicitly request to
be copied. ''
These are the header in the message that I received:
From: Rich Puhek <rpu...@etnsystems.com>
To: Steve Lamb <gr...@dmiyu.org>
Cc: debia...@lists.debian.org
So, actually, the message is addressed to you, Steve, and the carbon
copy was sent to the mailing list, which is not prohibited by that
particular code of conduct -- if one wants to pick the nits that are
actually buzzing around ones head ;>
--
Best Regards,
mds
mds resource
877.596.8237
-
Dare to fix things before they break . . .
-
Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much
we think we know. The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . .
--
cr
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 06:27:03PM +0100, iain d broadfoot wrote:
> > * Bijan Soleymani (bi...@psq.com) wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 08:43:21AM +0100, Mark wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 09:33:03PM -0400, Bijan Soleymani wrote:
> > > > > This makes a lot of sense. I mean if the FSF hired you to write a
> > > > > GPL program, they wouldn't want you to release a proprietary
> > > > > version of it after you quit working for them.
> > > >
> > > > Why would they care? They would have their GPLed version, if you
> > > > choose to write a closed version, that's your choice.
> > >
> > > If they didn't care about closed version they wouldn't use the GPL.
> >
> > This is broken logic.
> >
> > The FSF would have nothing to lose from a closed version of a GPL piece
> > of software being developed.
>
> It's not nothing. Let's say half the users use the FSF/GPL version and
> half use the closed version. The FSF has just lost half its users. By
> the FSF's theory half the users have lost their freedom.
No, they've chosen (for some presumably good reason) to use the 'closed'
version. They still have the freedom to choose.
The most you can say is, by using non-'free', they're helping (financially)
the 'closed' version and reducing the user base of the 'free' version. That
doesn't matter much so long as the versions remain compatible.
If it's M$ doing the 'closed' version, of course, we know what would happen -
copyrighted non-free 'features' get added, after which they try to squeeze
the free version out. OTOH, if it's a company with the slightest degree of
ethics, then the two versions could offer a wider choice to users.
cr
Karl E. Jorgensen
...
> Unfortunately there's a lot of gray area. Programmers develop tools and
> idioms for doing common tasks. Clearly that's something that belongs to
> the individual programmer and not the company. If you work for one
> company developing some network code, you will likely use the same
> methods writing another program that is also network aware.
Depends: If tools = code, then it is the property of whoever pays. If
it is "kept in the head", it's yours. (yes: somebody in the US is bound
to sue...)
--
Karl E. Jørgensen
ka...@jorgensen.com http://karl.jorgensen.com
This message represents the official view of the voices in my head.
Nathan E Norman
> if one wants to pick the nits that are actually buzzing around ones
> head ;>
Nits don't buzz around your head as they are eggs.
(sorry :-)
--
Nathan Norman - Incanus Networking mailto:nno...@incanus.net
For the next hour, WE will control all that you see and hear.
Chris Metzler
"Karl E. Jorgensen" <ka...@jorgensen.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 06:56:33PM -0700, Bill Moseley wrote:
> ...
> > Unfortunately there's a lot of gray area. Programmers develop tools
> > and idioms for doing common tasks. Clearly that's something that
> > belongs to the individual programmer and not the company. If you work
> > for one company developing some network code, you will likely use the
> > same methods writing another program that is also network aware.
>
> Depends: If tools = code, then it is the property of whoever pays. If
> it is "kept in the head", it's yours. (yes: somebody in the US is bound
> to sue...)
And win. That last sentence has been invalidated by the U.S. courts.
Somebody already has sued, establishing precedent that if it's "kept in
the head," it still isn't yours, it's the employers.
See
or
-c
--
Chris Metzler cmet...@speakeasy.snip-me.net
(remove "snip-me." to email)
"As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I
have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 07:21:47PM -0500, Michael D Schleif wrote:
> So, actually, the message is addressed to you, Steve, and the carbon
> copy was sent to the mailing list, which is not prohibited by that
> particular code of conduct -- if one wants to pick the nits that are
> actually buzzing around ones head ;>
Americans tend to forget that there's a difference between letter and
spirit. You're deliberately defeating the spirit of the rule, which
is don't send to the list and the person you're replying to unless the
person you're replying to requests the duplicate copy.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' : proud Debian admin and user
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/REwhsClmdIs2Ki8RAlFgAJ97kwUETHmUlOaQB5NKG4fK3Ycf4QCfZZmv
BghUVYeinEufJYfEVS3wLgI=
=T+Rp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Stephen Patterson
> Americans tend to forget that there's a difference between letter and
> spirit. You're deliberately defeating the spirit of the rule, which
> is don't send to the list and the person you're replying to unless the
> person you're replying to requests the duplicate copy.
I'm with Paul on this one, the whole point of a mailing list is that
traffic should stay on the list.
--
Stephen Patterson http://www.lexx.uklinux.net http://patter.mine.nu
st...@SPAM.lexx.uklinux.net remove SPAM to reply
Linux Counter No: 142831 GPG Public key: 252B8B37
Last one down the pub's an MCSE
Karsten M. Self
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 09:33:03PM -0400, Bijan Soleymani wrote:
> >
> > employed by them is their property. Even code you write in your spare
> > time. I mean I think to some extent this can be defended especially if
> > it's in the same field. Because you could slack off on your real work
> > and do your version of the thing on the side for profit.
> >
> > Example the guys working at ebay start their own auction site (in direct
> > competition with ebay) on the side and spend their spare time working on
> > that. How moral is that? I mean that doesn't even have to do with
> > copyright so much as common sense.
>
> I can see where if you hire someone to create something for you, and you
> pay them to do it then it's yours. People commission artists all the
> time for private work. Clearly, there should be a way to protect your
> investment in development. As Ebay you wouldn't want to pay programmers
> to develop your code and then allow them to take that and compete. Not
> very fair competition.
Sorry to drag up this old thread, but there's some bogus data here.
The issue is called "works for hire". One landmark case actually
involves a piece of art -- sculpture -- created for IIRC homeless
rights group. The artist sued for copyright in the work. See:
http://www.gigalaw.com/library/ccnv-reid-1989-06-05-p1.html
The term "work for hire" is defined in the definitions section of 17
U.S.C. (the US copyright code):
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/101.html
A ''work made for hire'' is -
(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her
employment; or
(2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a
contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture
or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary
work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as
answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties
expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the
work shall be considered a work made for hire.
....which is why those of you who've contracted in the US generally find
a rights assignment clause in your contract. I typically request that
this be specifically limited to "works created at the request of
Company" or similar language. In years of this practice, I've never had
significant pushback on this issue.
> Unfortunately there's a lot of gray area. Programmers develop tools
> and idioms for doing common tasks. Clearly that's something that
> belongs to the individual programmer and not the company. If you work
> for one company developing some network code, you will likely use the
> same methods writing another program that is also network aware.
This falls to an extend under noncompete law, which is governed in the
US by state, and can vary tremendously. New York State, for example, is
particularly employee-unfriendly in this regard.
I'd strongly recommend perusing an article by a friend of mine who ran
into conflict when a general-use method he wanted to contribute to Perl
caught the attention of his employer:
Professional Employees and Works for Hire
http://perlmonks.thepen.com/153046.html
The upshot was that an informal arrangement between tilly and his
immediate supervisor was countermanded by corporate counsel and
management. As tilly hadn't completed implementation of the concept, he
refused to do so, and negotiated an arrangement by which he would remain
with his employer for a period of time, with benefits accruing, etc. He
left this employer in May, moved to California, and is working under far
more favorable law, at a better salary, and with a team he enjoys, not
to mention a disgustingly brief commute and sweet pad. His former
employer is down their star employee of the past six years.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <kms...@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Defeat EU Software Patents! http://swpat.ffii.org/