473,320 Members | 2,109 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,320 software developers and data experts.

Which License Should I Use?

I've been watching the flame war about licenses with some interest.
There are many motivations for those who participate in this sector, so
disagreements over licenses reflect those agendas.

I don't have an agenda, at least not right now. I do plan on writing a
few programs.

These will be tools I need for firmware testing. They will be
relatively simple things like tools for breaking down data by its
structure for easy viewing, sending commands/macros over serial ports,
etc. Similar things exist, but they don't do everything I need. These
will also be excellent learning opportunities for me, since I'm still
pretty shaky on Python.

How do I decide on a license? Are there any web sites that summarize
the pros and cons? I guess I don't care too much about how other
people use it. These things won't be comprehensive enough or have
broad enough appeal that somebody will slap a new coat of paint on them
and try to sell them. I guess I don't care if somebody incorporates
them into something bigger. If somebody were to add features to them,
it would be nice to get the code and keep the derivative work as open
source, but I don't think that matters all that much to me. If
somebody can add value and find a way of making money at it, I don't
think I'd be too upset.

I will be doing the bulk of the coding on my own time, because I need
to be able to take these tools with me when I change employers.
However, I'm sure that in the course of using these tools, I will need
to spend time on the job debugging or tweaking them. I do not want my
current employer to have any claim on my code in any way. Usually if
you program on company time, that makes what you do a "work for hire".
I can't contaminate my code like that. Does that mean the GPL is the
strongest defense in this situation?

I'm open to suggestions as to which licenses to consider. However,
please try to keep the conversation to the decision process or what
sounds like it is best for this purpose. Let's keep the broader issue
of which license will bring about the fall of Western Civilization on
the other thread.

Ron Britton

(The gibberish on the next line really is my email address.)
nk67v8o02
at
sneakemail.com

Nov 25 '05 #1
51 3165
"mojosam" <nk*******@sneakemail.com> writes:
I will be doing the bulk of the coding on my own time, because I need
to be able to take these tools with me when I change employers.
However, I'm sure that in the course of using these tools, I will need
to spend time on the job debugging or tweaking them. I do not want my
current employer to have any claim on my code in any way. Usually if
you program on company time, that makes what you do a "work for hire".
I can't contaminate my code like that. Does that mean the GPL is the
strongest defense in this situation?


IANAL, but I don't believe the GPL helps in this situation. It places
conditions on redistributing the code; it doesn't force you to
redistribute modifieed code. Your employers could refuse to let you
take the code with you because they own partial copyright on it. They
couldn't sell it later because of the GPL on it, but that's not your
issue here.

I tend to try to get clients to agree that code that comes in from
outside can go back out under whatever license it came in on. That
makes it clear up front that the results go back to the community,
which means you can get at them.

If you deal with this issue, the license that best meets your
description are the BSD-like license, which have been called
"copycenter" licenses. They place no restrictions whatsoever on the
the further use.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
Nov 25 '05 #2
mojosam wrote:
I will be doing the bulk of the coding on my own time, because I need
to be able to take these tools with me when I change employers.
However, I'm sure that in the course of using these tools, I will need
to spend time on the job debugging or tweaking them. I do not want my
current employer to have any claim on my code in any way. Usually if
you program on company time, that makes what you do a "work for hire".
I can't contaminate my code like that. Does that mean the GPL is the
strongest defense in this situation?


Not at all. The code that you write on your employer's time probably
belongs to the employer (you'll need to read your contract and the
relevant state law or talk to a competent lawyer in your area for full
details). Just because you added that code to a GPLed project doesn't
mean that the added code would be released under the GPL. If your
employer had an interest in keeping you from using it after you left
them, they simply wouldn't release the code at all. They wouldn't be
able to turn it into a proprietary project using your GPLed code, but
they could prevent you from taking the added code with you.

Also, the employer may still own the copyright on software that you
write on your own time if it substantially relates to your job (as it
seems it does). Again, you will have to read your contract and the
relevant state law or possibly talk to a lawyer to find out. I am not
such a lawyer, and, of course, none of this is legal advice.

That said, assuming that you can release the code under an open source
license and given your lack of an agenda, the BSD license seems
appropriate. You may also want to read this Licensing HOWTO:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/Licensing-HOWTO.html

It's a draft, but it contains useful information. Also, Larry Rosen's
book _Open Source Licensing_ is quite helpful (and free!).

http://rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm

--
Robert Kern
ro*********@gmail.com

"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
-- Richard Harter

Nov 25 '05 #3
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> writes:
IANAL, but I don't believe the GPL helps in this situation. It places
conditions on redistributing the code; it doesn't force you to
redistribute modifieed code. Your employers could refuse to let you
take the code with you because they own partial copyright on it. They
couldn't sell it later because of the GPL on it, but that's not your
issue here.


If they have the rights to the code, they can sell it, under the GPL or
any license of their choosing. In addition, if you GPL it, your employer
will be able to sell it, just like anyone else.

--
Björn Lindström <bk**@stp.lingfil.uu.se>
Student of computational linguistics, Uppsala University, Sweden
Nov 25 '05 #4
mojosam wrote:
I've been watching the flame war about licenses with some interest.
There are many motivations for those who participate in this sector, so
disagreements over licenses reflect those agendas.

I don't have an agenda, at least not right now. I do plan on writing a
few programs.

These will be tools I need for firmware testing. They will be
relatively simple things like tools for breaking down data by its
structure for easy viewing, sending commands/macros over serial ports,
etc. Similar things exist, but they don't do everything I need. These
will also be excellent learning opportunities for me, since I'm still
pretty shaky on Python.

How do I decide on a license? Are there any web sites that summarize
the pros and cons? I guess I don't care too much about how other
people use it. These things won't be comprehensive enough or have
broad enough appeal that somebody will slap a new coat of paint on them
and try to sell them. I guess I don't care if somebody incorporates
them into something bigger. If somebody were to add features to them,
it would be nice to get the code and keep the derivative work as open
source, but I don't think that matters all that much to me. If
somebody can add value and find a way of making money at it, I don't
think I'd be too upset.

I will be doing the bulk of the coding on my own time, because I need
to be able to take these tools with me when I change employers.
However, I'm sure that in the course of using these tools, I will need
to spend time on the job debugging or tweaking them. I do not want my
current employer to have any claim on my code in any way. Usually if
you program on company time, that makes what you do a "work for hire".
I can't contaminate my code like that. Does that mean the GPL is the
strongest defense in this situation?

I'm open to suggestions as to which licenses to consider. However,
please try to keep the conversation to the decision process or what
sounds like it is best for this purpose. Let's keep the broader issue
of which license will bring about the fall of Western Civilization on
the other thread.

Ron Britton

(The gibberish on the next line really is my email address.)
nk67v8o02
at
sneakemail.com


As mentioned earlier, your employer may lay some claim to the result if
it substantially relates to your work.

Using your employer's equipment to develop or test the code might also
be an indication that it is a work for hire. Either that, or you
misused the company's assets for personal gain. Neither sounds very
attractive.
Nov 25 '05 #5
bk**@stp.lingfil.uu.se (Björn Lindström) writes:
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> writes:
IANAL, but I don't believe the GPL helps in this situation. It places
conditions on redistributing the code; it doesn't force you to
redistribute modifieed code. Your employers could refuse to let you
take the code with you because they own partial copyright on it. They
couldn't sell it later because of the GPL on it, but that's not your
issue here.

If they have the rights to the code, they can sell it, under the GPL or
any license of their choosing. In addition, if you GPL it, your employer
will be able to sell it, just like anyone else.


You're right - the GPL doesn't prevent them from selling it; it just
requires that they make source available to anyone they sell it to,
and prevents them from preventing people who buy it from giving it
away to anyone they want.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
Nov 25 '05 #6
mojosam wrote:
How do I decide on a license?


If you want to look at this from a legal point of view,
I highly recommend reading Larry Rosen's book, Open Source
Licensing. It covers issue you would never have thought
of without studying law, and gives good advice (IMHO).

Regards,
Martin
Nov 25 '05 #7
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Robert Kern wrote:
You may also want to read this Licensing HOWTO:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/Licensing-HOWTO.html

It's a draft, but it contains useful information.


It's worth mentioning that ESR, who wrote that, is zealously
pro-BSD-style-license. That's not to say that the article isn't useful
and/or balanced, but it's something to bear in mind while reading it.

tom

--
Science runs with us, making us Gods.
Nov 25 '05 #8
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, mojosam wrote:
How do I decide on a license?
You decide on what obligations you wish to impose on licensees, then pick
a license which embodies those. There are basically three levels of
obligation:

1. None.

2. Derivatives of the code must be open source.

3. Derivatives of the code and any other code which uses it must be open
source.

By 'derivatives', i mean modified versions. By 'open source', i really
mean 'under the same license as the original code'.

So, the licenses corresponding to these obligations are:

1. A BSD-style license. I say 'BSD-style' because there are about a
hojillion licenses which say more or less the same thing - and it's quite
amazing just how many words can be split spelling out the absence of
obligations - but the grand-daddy of them all is the BSD license:

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

2. The GNU Lesser General Public License:

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html

3. The GNU General Public License:

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

The GPL licenses place quite severe restrictions on the freedom of
programmers using the code, but you often hear GNU people banging on about
freedom - 'free software', 'free as in speech', etc. What you have to
realise is that they're not talking about the freedom of the programmers,
but about the freedom of the software. The logic, i think, is that the
freedom of the code is the key to the freedom of the end-users: applying
the GPL to your code means that other programmers will be forced to apply
to to their code, which means that users of that code will get the
benefits of open source.

Having said all that, you can only license software if you own the
copyright on it, and as has been pointed out, in this case, you might not.
Are there any web sites that summarize the pros and cons?
The GNU project has a quite useful list of licenses, with their takes on
them:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

Bear in mind that the GNU project is strongly in favour of the GPL, so
they're perhaps not as positive about non-GPL licenses as would be fair.

This dude's written about this a bit:

http://zooko.com/license_quick_ref.html
I guess I don't care too much about how other people use it. These
things won't be comprehensive enough or have broad enough appeal that
somebody will slap a new coat of paint on them and try to sell them. I
guess I don't care if somebody incorporates them into something bigger.
If somebody were to add features to them, it would be nice to get the
code and keep the derivative work as open source, but I don't think that
matters all that much to me. If somebody can add value and find a way
of making money at it, I don't think I'd be too upset.
To me, it sounds like you want a BSD-style license. But then i'm a BSD
afficionado myself, so perhaps i would say that!

In fact, while were on the subject, let me plug my own license page:

http://urchin.earth.li/~twic/The_Ama...D_License.html

I apply 0-clause BSD to all the code i release these days.
I will be doing the bulk of the coding on my own time, because I need to
be able to take these tools with me when I change employers. However,
I'm sure that in the course of using these tools, I will need to spend
time on the job debugging or tweaking them. I do not want my current
employer to have any claim on my code in any way. Usually if you
program on company time, that makes what you do a "work for hire". I
can't contaminate my code like that. Does that mean the GPL is the
strongest defense in this situation?
The license you choose has absolutely no bearing on this. Either the
copyright belongs to you, in which case you're fine, or to your employer,
in which case you don't have the right to license it, so its moot.
Let's keep the broader issue of which license will bring about the fall
of Western Civilization
You mean the GPL?
on the other thread.


Oops!

tom

--
Science runs with us, making us Gods.
Nov 26 '05 #9
mojosam wrote:
I've been watching the flame war about licenses with some interest.
There are many motivations for those who participate in this sector, so
disagreements over licenses reflect those agendas.

I don't have an agenda, at least not right now. I do plan on writing a
few programs.

These will be tools I need for firmware testing. They will be
relatively simple things like tools for breaking down data by its
structure for easy viewing, sending commands/macros over serial ports,
etc. Similar things exist, but they don't do everything I need. These
will also be excellent learning opportunities for me, since I'm still
pretty shaky on Python.

How do I decide on a license? Are there any web sites that summarize
the pros and cons? I guess I don't care too much about how other
people use it. These things won't be comprehensive enough or have
broad enough appeal that somebody will slap a new coat of paint on them
and try to sell them. I guess I don't care if somebody incorporates
them into something bigger. If somebody were to add features to them,
it would be nice to get the code and keep the derivative work as open
source, but I don't think that matters all that much to me. If
somebody can add value and find a way of making money at it, I don't
think I'd be too upset.

I will be doing the bulk of the coding on my own time, because I need
to be able to take these tools with me when I change employers.
However, I'm sure that in the course of using these tools, I will need
to spend time on the job debugging or tweaking them. I do not want my
current employer to have any claim on my code in any way. Usually if
you program on company time, that makes what you do a "work for hire".
I can't contaminate my code like that. Does that mean the GPL is the
strongest defense in this situation?

I'm open to suggestions as to which licenses to consider. However,
please try to keep the conversation to the decision process or what
sounds like it is best for this purpose. Let's keep the broader issue
of which license will bring about the fall of Western Civilization on
the other thread.


Openness is your best protection here, as licensing the software can
only impose conditions on those who accept it under the license. It
cannot affect your employer's rights to work you performed while an
employee. Those rights are determined by applicable law.

The only way to ensure that you can take your own unencumbered copy of
code you wrote as an employee is to explain the position fully to your
employer and get their agreement, in writing and in advance, that they
are prepared to have you do so.

Simply assuming that because you have developed the code "in your own
time" you have sole rights to it, or even a right to redistribute, is
likely to lead to trouble and I would recommend against that course of
action.

Apart from that, as others have suggested it looks like a BSD-style
license would suit you best.

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC www.holdenweb.com
PyCon TX 2006 www.python.org/pycon/

Nov 26 '05 #10
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:30:46 -0800, mojosam wrote:
I guess I don't care too much about how other people use it.
Then probably the best licence to use is just to follow the lead of
Python. For that sort of small program of limited value, I put something
like this in the code:

Copyright (c) 2005 Steven D'Aprano.
Released under the same license as used by Python 2.3.2 itself.
See http://www.python.org/psf/license.html for details, and
http://www.python.org/2.3.2/license.html for the full text of the license.

I use that as a no-brainer licence: it is weaker than but compatible with
the GPL, and requires less documentation.

I will be doing the bulk of the coding on my own time, because I need to
be able to take these tools with me when I change employers. However,
I'm sure that in the course of using these tools, I will need to spend
time on the job debugging or tweaking them. I do not want my current
employer to have any claim on my code in any way. Usually if you
program on company time, that makes what you do a "work for hire". I
can't contaminate my code like that. Does that mean the GPL is the
strongest defense in this situation?


Not at all.

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but I suggest that your
*only* defence will be to get your employer to sign a legal agreement
acknowledging that you own the code. If you like, offer them a perpetual
royalty-free non-exclusive licence to use the code, and explain how using
your own code will make you more productive in their time.

If they refuse, then you must absolutely keep a cast-iron barrier between
what you develop in your own time and what you develop in theirs. To be
safe, I wouldn't even *use* that code in their time: if your productivity
suffers, that's their choice.

As an alternative, consider that who owns the copyright doesn't matter. If
your employer insists on keeping the copyright, get permission from them
to distribute the code under an open source licence. Then you can take it
with you when you leave, and still use it.

Unless you explicitly sign them away (and even that is legally dubious)
you still retain the "moral rights" to the code, even if copyright is
owned by your employer: you can still say "I wrote this".

Please note that merely putting the code under a GPL or other OSS licence
is NOT sufficient -- they must agree to let you DISTRIBUTE the code.
Merely being under the GPL does not make it compulsory to distribute the
code, and if you distribute software copyrighted by your employer without
their permission, the fact that is GPLed is not going to save you.

Getting permission to put it up on the corporate website might be
sufficient, but if it were me, I'd insist on an agreement allowing me to
take the code with me when I leave. (This is only necessary if your
employer owns the copyright.)

It need not be a complicated agreement: I recently signed a copyright
transfer agreement for some employees who left the company to start their
own company. The agreement was less than two pages long.
--
Steven.

Nov 26 '05 #11
Steve Holden <st***@holdenweb.com> writes:
Simply assuming that because you have developed the code "in your own
time" you have sole rights to it, or even a right to redistribute, is
likely to lead to trouble and I would recommend against that course of
action.


The employment agreement may state specifically that the company owns
such properties. There have been companies that explicitly claim all
software/inventions/etc that you produce while in their employee, even
if they had nothing to do with said IP. Some jurisdictions make this
illegal - but that doesn't stop the company from trying to convince
you they can do that.

But this cuts both ways - if you get them to agree in writing as part
of the employment agreement that the code isn't there, which Steve
suggested, then laws about "work for hire" are pretty much
irrelevant.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

Nov 26 '05 #12
On 25 Nov 2005 11:30:46 -0800, mojosam <nk*******@sneakemail.com> wrote:
....
How do I decide on a license? Are there any web sites that summarize
the pros and cons?


I like this list:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

It's from a GPL perspective of course, but pretty balanced I think.

Personally, I use the GPL or the Modified BSD license, depending on the
phase of the moon. And I do take software with me to work, but never in the
reverse direction.

/Jorgen

--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu
\X/ snipabacken.dyndns.org> R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
Nov 26 '05 #13
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 00:13:10 +0000, Tom Anderson <tw**@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
....
freedom - 'free software', 'free as in speech', etc. What you have to
realise is that they're not talking about the freedom of the programmers,
but about the freedom of the software. The logic, i think, is that the
freedom of the code is the key to the freedom of the end-users: applying
the GPL to your code means that other programmers will be forced to apply
to to their code, which means that users of that code will get the
benefits of open source.
.... which implies that one believes that every end-user has the potential to
become a hacker. That, I think, is at the core of the GPL, and RMS's
rantings are easier to understand if you keep that in mind.

But yes, let's not dive too deeply into all that here.
Oops!

;-)

/Jorgen

--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu
\X/ snipabacken.dyndns.org> R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
Nov 26 '05 #14
Thanks to everyone so far. You've helped a lot. (BTW, I read this
through Google Groups. Somehow they've gotten about 24 hours behind,
so I'm seeing your replies a day late.)

The biggest misconception I had was that the license could force the
code to stay open source. You're right. What I do on company time
belongs to the company. I guess I assumed there was a license that
forced them to release it.

At one place I worked, they had to delay the release of the product by
a few weeks, because they discovered that they had included an open
source (don't know which license) module. They had to pull it out and
recode it themselves (I know the other thread covered the subtleties of
whether even that was kosher, but let's ignore that here). I think the
problem there was they believed that if they included the module, they
would have had to release the source code to the entire project. I was
kind of hoping for something like that.

I would have to talk to a lawyer to be sure, but right now, I think I
can argue that anything I do on my own time belongs to me. I'm
technically a consultant right now (even though I'm spending 40
hours/week with the one "client"). I can take on other clients, as
long as they don't directly compete. This means they're hiring my
expertise. If I bring my own tools, that's part of my expertise. I do
recall there was a clause in the contract that anything I did on their
time belonged to them. For my next client, I should definitely include
a clause about rereleasing open source changes.

Anyway, staying away from the lawyer issues, if anyone has additional
thoughts to add to this, please keep the conversation going. People
are raising some good points.

Ron Britton
nk67v8o02
at
sneakemail.com

Nov 26 '05 #15
mojosam wrote:
I would have to talk to a lawyer to be sure, but right now, I think I
can argue that anything I do on my own time belongs to me. I'm
technically a consultant right now (even though I'm spending 40
hours/week with the one "client"). I can take on other clients, as
long as they don't directly compete. This means they're hiring my
expertise. If I bring my own tools, that's part of my expertise. I do
recall there was a clause in the contract that anything I did on their
time belonged to them. For my next client, I should definitely include
a clause about rereleasing open source changes.


You're in something of a gray area, but one that has seen a lot of
litigation. Although you are "technically" a consultant, you are
probably considered an employee with regards to the "work made for hire"
doctrine. You should probably have a chat with a lawyer soon (I am not
one! TINLA!).

As Steve Holden said, being open with your client and putting an
agreement in your contract is probably the best way to ensure that your
work will belong to you or, failing that, continue to be available to
you under an open source license.

--
Robert Kern
ro*********@gmail.com

"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
-- Richard Harter

Nov 26 '05 #16
Jorgen Grahn <gr********@snipabacken.dyndns.org> wrote:
Tom Anderson <tw**@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
The logic, i think, is that the freedom of the code is the key to
the freedom of the end-users: applying the GPL to your code means
that other programmers will be forced to apply to to their code,
which means that users of that code will get the benefits of open
source.


... which implies that one believes that every end-user has the
potential to become a hacker.


To become, or *independently engage another person as* a hacker
without necessary further contact with the copyright holder.

The same freedom you get with, e.g., any complicated machine. You can
open it up yourself, or you can persuade a third party to do so,
without the necessity to get the maker involved.

It's not necessary for every single user of such machines to become
hackers of those machines; they still all get the benefit of the
freedom for anyone they choose to hack on it.

--
\ "I have a map of the United States; it's actual size. It says |
`\ '1 mile equals 1 mile'... Last summer, I folded it." -- Steven |
_o__) Wright |
Ben Finney
Nov 26 '05 #17
> First thing first, you need to find out if you are an
"employee", not in the normal sense, but legal sense.


You're right. I know there has been a lot of case law to come down the
pike over the years, due to all sorts of issues. One of my friends is
a cab driver. His contract says that he is an independent contractor.
Yet his state (Oregon) has three criteria that have to be met. One of
these is he has to set his own hours. He doesn't; the cab company
tells him when he works. This fails the independent contractor test,
so the cab company is legally exposed if any of the cabbies wants to
press any employment-law issues.

So there are too many variables and unknowns, and it varies by
jurisdiction.

I started this thread under the mistaken hope that there was some sort
of license that would force the code to stay open source. Although
that isn't realistic, it doesn't change the fact that I should choose a
license that best fits my needs.

I will consult a lawyer about these issues. Also, if my
client/employer won't let me keep my code, I'll just have to keep my
code away from them. Maybe I can find a commercial tool and tell them
that they will have to buy that.

Ron Britton
nk67v8o02 at
sneakemail.com

Nov 27 '05 #18
Yup, these independent contractor test doctrines bite both way and in
your case, it is not in your advantage, usually.

I would suggest that whatever tools you want to make to enhance the
work(even it is inspired by your current task), don't use it on this
employer/client, at least not on their premise(including property say a
notebook provided by them) and must not let anyone know that you use it
to help you do the work about them.

mojosam wrote:
First thing first, you need to find out if you are an
"employee", not in the normal sense, but legal sense.


You're right. I know there has been a lot of case law to come down the
pike over the years, due to all sorts of issues. One of my friends is
a cab driver. His contract says that he is an independent contractor.
Yet his state (Oregon) has three criteria that have to be met. One of
these is he has to set his own hours. He doesn't; the cab company
tells him when he works. This fails the independent contractor test,
so the cab company is legally exposed if any of the cabbies wants to
press any employment-law issues.

So there are too many variables and unknowns, and it varies by
jurisdiction.

I started this thread under the mistaken hope that there was some sort
of license that would force the code to stay open source. Although
that isn't realistic, it doesn't change the fact that I should choose a
license that best fits my needs.

I will consult a lawyer about these issues. Also, if my
client/employer won't let me keep my code, I'll just have to keep my
code away from them. Maybe I can find a commercial tool and tell them
that they will have to buy that.

Ron Britton
nk67v8o02 at
sneakemail.com


Nov 27 '05 #19
"mojosam" <nk*******@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:11*********************@g49g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
I will be doing the bulk of the coding on my own time, because I need
to be able to take these tools with me when I change employers.
However, I'm sure that in the course of using these tools, I will need
to spend time on the job debugging or tweaking them. I do not want my
current employer to have any claim on my code in any way. Usually if
you program on company time, that makes what you do a "work for hire".
I can't contaminate my code like that. Does that mean the GPL is the
strongest defense in this situation?


It probably means that the only reliable defense is to get a written release
from your employer. If you want to be more confident about the situation,
consult a lawyer.

Nov 27 '05 #20
""Björn Lindström"" <bk**@stp.lingfil.uu.se> wrote in message
news:87***************@lucien.dreaming...
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> writes: If they have the rights to the code, they can sell it, under the GPL or
any license of their choosing. In addition, if you GPL it, your employer
will be able to sell it, just like anyone else.


If they have the rights to the code, you don't get to decide on the terms
under which it will be distributed (if at all) -- they do.
Nov 27 '05 #21
"mojosam" <nk*******@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@g43g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
I would have to talk to a lawyer to be sure, but right now, I think I
can argue that anything I do on my own time belongs to me. I'm
technically a consultant right now (even though I'm spending 40
hours/week with the one "client"). I can take on other clients, as
long as they don't directly compete. This means they're hiring my
expertise. If I bring my own tools, that's part of my expertise. I do
recall there was a clause in the contract that anything I did on their
time belonged to them. For my next client, I should definitely include
a clause about rereleasing open source changes.


Yup. If you're not an employee (that is, if you get a 1099 form rather than
a W-2 form from your client), then any work you do belongs to you *except*
for what you agree in writing belongs to them. So if you write code that's
not part of any deliverable, it's yours.

Of course, they might object to your using their facilities, or working on
their time, on stuff that isn't part of a deliverable. But that's a
separate problem entirely.
Nov 27 '05 #22
"Robert Kern" <ro*********@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ma***************************************@pyt hon.org...
You're in something of a gray area, but one that has seen a lot of
litigation. Although you are "technically" a consultant, you are
probably considered an employee with regards to the "work made for hire"
doctrine. You should probably have a chat with a lawyer soon (I am not
one! TINLA!).


I'm pretty sure that there was a change to the copyright laws a few years
ago (perhaps as part of the DMCA), that made it clear that you own
everything you produce, unless you're a W-2 employee or there is a written
agreement to the contrary.

Nov 27 '05 #23
Andrew Koenig wrote:
"Robert Kern" <ro*********@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ma***************************************@pyt hon.org...
You're in something of a gray area, but one that has seen a lot of
litigation. Although you are "technically" a consultant, you are
probably considered an employee with regards to the "work made for hire"
doctrine. You should probably have a chat with a lawyer soon (I am not
one! TINLA!).


I'm pretty sure that there was a change to the copyright laws a few years
ago (perhaps as part of the DMCA), that made it clear that you own
everything you produce, unless you're a W-2 employee or there is a written
agreement to the contrary.


The US Copyright Office does not agree with you.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf

But you can read the text of the DMCA itself.

http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/hr2281_dm...pl105-304.html

--
Robert Kern
ro*********@gmail.com

"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
-- Richard Harter

Nov 27 '05 #24
Andrew Koenig wrote:
Yup. If you're not an employee (that is, if you get a 1099 form rather than
a W-2 form from your client), then any work you do belongs to you *except*
for what you agree in writing belongs to them. So if you write code that's
not part of any deliverable, it's yours.


Please stop saying things that are demonstrably untrue and could get
people into legal trouble if they believed you.

--
Robert Kern
ro*********@gmail.com

"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
-- Richard Harter

Nov 27 '05 #25
"Andrew Koenig" <ar*@acm.org> writes:
I'm pretty sure that there was a change to the copyright laws a few years
ago (perhaps as part of the DMCA), that made it clear that you own
everything you produce, unless you're a W-2 employee or there is a written
agreement to the contrary.


Definitely not. The most recent change to the copyright laws made
works of music recorded to fullfill a contract "work for hire" by
default.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
Nov 27 '05 #26
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:30:46 -0800, mojosam wrote:
I guess I don't care too much about how other people use it.


Then probably the best licence to use is just to follow the lead of
Python. For that sort of small program of limited value, I put something
like this in the code:

Copyright (c) 2005 Steven D'Aprano.
Released under the same license as used by Python 2.3.2 itself.
See http://www.python.org/psf/license.html for details, and
http://www.python.org/2.3.2/license.html for the full text of the license.


Gaak! No! The Python license you point to contains horrible amounts of
cruft due to the ownership ping-pong game. (And just using the hyperlink
like you did leaves it vauge as to who is doing the liscensing - Steven
D'Aprano? the PSF? BeOpen? CNRI? Stichting Mathematisch Centrum?) As I
understand it, the PSF's official position is that the Python license
(even just the top most one) is not appropriate for any program besides
Python itself.

http://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonSo...tionLicenseFaq

Note that the Python license is not even appropriate for third party
code that's intended to be contributed to the Python standard library or
core!

If you want a "like Python" license, try the MIT or "new-BSD" license
instead:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
Nov 28 '05 #27
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:30:46 -0800, mojosam wrote:

I guess I don't care too much about how other people use it.

Then probably the best licence to use is just to follow the lead of
Python. For that sort of small program of limited value, I put something
like this in the code:

Copyright (c) 2005 Steven D'Aprano.
Released under the same license as used by Python 2.3.2 itself.
See http://www.python.org/psf/license.html for details, and
http://www.python.org/2.3.2/license.html for the full text of the license.

I use that as a no-brainer licence: it is weaker than but compatible with
the GPL, and requires less documentation.

Not only is this inappropriate, it doesn't even license users to use
your software, it licenses them to use Python! The official advice of
the PSF is that the unmodified Python license should *not* (and, really,
can not) be used to license any other software.

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC www.holdenweb.com
PyCon TX 2006 www.python.org/pycon/

Nov 28 '05 #28
mojosam wrote:
I've been watching the flame war about licenses with some interest.
There are many motivations for those who participate in this sector, so
disagreements over licenses reflect those agendas.


One point that frequently gets ignored in licensing debates:

The value of a license is directly proportional to the amount of time,
effort, and money you are willing to spend enforcing it.

It doesn't matter how fancy the legal wording is - it is up to you, as
the copyright holder, to bring legal action against infringers (or at
least send a cease-and-desist letter). If you're not going to bother,
any and all clauses in the license, no matter how artfully crafted,
won't do you any (legal) good. People using your program are left acting
on the honor system. Which may be just fine - but you don't need a
fancy, legalistic license to accomplish that.
Nov 28 '05 #29
Rocco Moretti <ro**********@hotpop.com> wrote:
One point that frequently gets ignored in licensing debates:

The value of a license is directly proportional to the amount of
time, effort, and money you are willing to spend enforcing it.
That's a very important factor, yes.
It doesn't matter how fancy the legal wording is - it is up to you,
as the copyright holder, to bring legal action


This is true as far as it goes. What is sought, though, is not "fancy
legal wording", but clarity of intent.

The wording is *extremely* important, since it must express, as
clearly and unambiguously as possible, the intent of the license
granter. Legal action and judicial interpretation will play their
part, but the clearer you can make the license text, the less
guesswork is needed on both sides to determine what is and is not
permitted in the license terms.

The GNU GPL, and the Expat license (née X11, MIT, 2-clause BSD, etc.),
are popular in part because the intent of their terms is expressed
very clearly.

--
\ "He who wonders discovers that this in itself is wonder." -- |
`\ Maurits Cornelis Escher |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
Nov 28 '05 #30
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 12:40:07 -0600, Rocco Moretti wrote:
Gaak! No! The Python license you point to contains horrible amounts of
cruft due to the ownership ping-pong game. (And just using the hyperlink
like you did leaves it vauge as to who is doing the liscensing - Steven
D'Aprano? the PSF? BeOpen? CNRI? Stichting Mathematisch Centrum?) As I
understand it, the PSF's official position is that the Python license
(even just the top most one) is not appropriate for any program besides
Python itself.

http://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonSo...tionLicenseFaq


Well, I've just learnt something. Thank you. I'll be having a long talk
with the experience Python developer who advised me to do that...

--
Steven.

Nov 28 '05 #31
Robert Kern <ro*********@gmail.com> writes:
It's a draft, but it contains useful information. Also, Larry Rosen's
book _Open Source Licensing_ is quite helpful (and free!).

http://rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm


That is the guy who claims it is impossible to release anything into
the public domain, other than by dying and then waiting 70 years. As
far as I can tell, and according to experts like L. Lessig, he is
wrong. When I wrote Mr. Rosen asking about it, he didn't answer. So
at this point I wouldn't believe anything he says.

http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html
Nov 29 '05 #32
"mojosam" <nk*******@sneakemail.com> writes:
I will be doing the bulk of the coding on my own time, because I need
to be able to take these tools with me when I change employers.
However, I'm sure that in the course of using these tools, I will need
to spend time on the job debugging or tweaking them. I do not want my
current employer to have any claim on my code in any way. Usually if
you program on company time, that makes what you do a "work for hire".
I can't contaminate my code like that.


Whether your employer has claim to stuff you do on your own time
depends intricately on the law in your state. California is much
different from New York, for example. The platitudes you hear in this
thread about it are pretty useless. "Employer" means something
specific: are you paid on W2's? If not, maybe you have a "client" or
"customer" rather than an "employer" and the entire picture is
different. When something is work for hire is also intricate. Just
because you're being paid by someone else to write something doesn't
always make it a work for hire, even if you're an employee. There are
no simple universal answers.

To get these questions answered you really have to consult a legal
adviser IN YOUR STATE. And you should explain at the very beginning
to your client/customer/employer what you're doing and what rights you
want to hold on to, and negotiate a written agreement. Don't take the
attitude of "in what ways can I make sure that surprises I spring on
the client get resolved in my favor if there's a dispute". Instead,
do everything you can to avoid disputes and surprises. That means get
the client need to agree in advance, in writing, to what happens with
what. Every agreement I've signed in the past few years has included
a release rights (from me to the employer) and a list of exceptions as
part of the boilerplate.
Nov 29 '05 #33
"Robert Kern" <ro*********@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ma***************************************@pyt hon.org...
Andrew Koenig wrote:

I'm pretty sure that there was a change to the copyright laws a few years
ago (perhaps as part of the DMCA), that made it clear that you own
everything you produce, unless you're a W-2 employee or there is a
written
agreement to the contrary.


The US Copyright Office does not agree with you.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf


Well, it comes pretty close to agreeing with me--the only issue is whether
the definition of "employee" extends beyond the notion of "W-2 employee" and
that issue is not really relevant to the original posting.

Here's the relevant quote:

If a work is created by an employee, part 1 of the statutory definition
applies, and generally the work would be considered a work made for hire.
Important: The term "employee" here is not really the same as the common
understanding of the term; for copyright purposes, it means an employee
under the general common law of agency. This is explained in further detail
below. Please read about this at "Employer-Employee Relationship Under
Agency Law." If a work is created by an independent contractor (that is,
someone who is not an employee under the general common law of agency), then
the work is a specially ordered or commissioned work, and part 2 of the
statutory definition applies. Such a work can be a work made for hire only
if both of the following conditions are met: (1) it comes within one of the
nine categories of works listed in part 2 of the definition and (2) there is
a written agreement between the parties specifying that the work is a work
made for hire.

The reason I say that the distinction between W-2 employment and agency
employment isn't really relevant is that in the kind of situation we're
talking about, there is generally a written agreement specifying scope and
nature of work.

So I'll amend my statement slightly:

If someone pays you to produce a specific piece of work, or you're an
employee, any work you do for hire belongs to your employer. Otherwise,
it's yours unless there's a written agreement to the contrary.

I think that's a fair paraphrase of the paragraph I cited. If you disagree,
please say why.


Nov 29 '05 #34
"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86************@bhuda.mired.org...
Definitely not. The most recent change to the copyright laws made
works of music recorded to fullfill a contract "work for hire" by
default.


If there's a contract -- i.e., a written agreement, then why does it matter?
Nov 29 '05 #35
"Andrew Koenig" <ar*@acm.org> writes:
Definitely not. The most recent change to the copyright laws made
works of music recorded to fullfill a contract "work for hire" by
default.


If there's a contract -- i.e., a written agreement, then why does it matter?


Music recordings of that type couldn't be works for hire before. It
got quietly changed in a sneaky maneuver by a congressional staffer
who then became an RIAA lobbyist. I've heard the change got undone
sometime after it was noticed and there was a protest but I'm not sure
of specifics. See:

http://www.jdray.com/Daviews/courtney.html
Nov 29 '05 #36
Andrew Koenig wrote:
"Robert Kern" <ro*********@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ma***************************************@pyt hon.org...
Andrew Koenig wrote:
I'm pretty sure that there was a change to the copyright laws a few years
ago (perhaps as part of the DMCA), that made it clear that you own
everything you produce, unless you're a W-2 employee or there is a
written
agreement to the contrary.


The US Copyright Office does not agree with you.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf


Well, it comes pretty close to agreeing with me--the only issue is whether
the definition of "employee" extends beyond the notion of "W-2 employee" and
that issue is not really relevant to the original posting.


Yes it is given that the OP is "technically" a contractor. But it does
flatly contradict what you wrote since it specifically states that there
are classes of "employee" for the "work made for hire" doctrine that go
beyond the "W-2 employee" definition. There was no such law that made
the distinction that you did.
Here's the relevant quote:

If a work is created by an employee, part 1 of the statutory definition
applies, and generally the work would be considered a work made for hire.
Important: The term "employee" here is not really the same as the common
understanding of the term; for copyright purposes, it means an employee
under the general common law of agency. This is explained in further detail
below. Please read about this at "Employer-Employee Relationship Under
Agency Law." If a work is created by an independent contractor (that is,
someone who is not an employee under the general common law of agency), then
the work is a specially ordered or commissioned work, and part 2 of the
statutory definition applies. Such a work can be a work made for hire only
if both of the following conditions are met: (1) it comes within one of the
nine categories of works listed in part 2 of the definition and (2) there is
a written agreement between the parties specifying that the work is a work
made for hire.
That's not the relevant quote. The relevant quote comes from the part
that "explain[s] in further detail below" about the factors laid down in
Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid.
The reason I say that the distinction between W-2 employment and agency
employment isn't really relevant is that in the kind of situation we're
talking about, there is generally a written agreement specifying scope and
nature of work.
Stop guessing.
So I'll amend my statement slightly:

If someone pays you to produce a specific piece of work, or you're an
employee, any work you do for hire belongs to your employer. Otherwise,
it's yours unless there's a written agreement to the contrary.
You can't use the phrase you're trying to define in the definition.
I think that's a fair paraphrase of the paragraph I cited. If you disagree,
please say why.


I disagree because it's a complicated bit of law that can't be boiled
down to two sentences. There are lots of tests a judge might apply and
none of them are of the form, "if the conditions are such-and-such then
the work is made for hire, otherwise not." This is not a guessing game
for laymen. This is an area for lawyers.

If I have one bit of advice for anyone reading this thread, it is this:
Don't listen to schmucks on USENET when making legal decisions. Hire
yourself a competent schmuck.

--
Robert Kern
ro*********@gmail.com

"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
-- Richard Harter

Nov 29 '05 #37
Paul Rubin wrote:
Robert Kern <ro*********@gmail.com> writes:
It's a draft, but it contains useful information. Also, Larry Rosen's
book _Open Source Licensing_ is quite helpful (and free!).

http://rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm
That is the guy who claims it is impossible to release anything into
the public domain, other than by dying and then waiting 70 years. As
far as I can tell, and according to experts like L. Lessig, he is
wrong.


Is that why the CC Public Domain Dedication has the subtitle
"Copyright-Only Dedication (based on United States law) or Public Domain
Certification"?

Lessig isn't sure. E.g. http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001066.shtml
When I wrote Mr. Rosen asking about it, he didn't answer.
He's a lawyer. Getting a legal opinion from him costs money.
So
at this point I wouldn't believe anything he says.

http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html


I amend my previous advice: Don't listen schmucks on USENET or the Web
when making legal decisions. Hire yourself a competent schmuck.

--
Robert Kern
ro*********@gmail.com

"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
-- Richard Harter

Nov 29 '05 #38
In article <ma***************************************@python. org>,
Robert Kern <ro*********@gmail.com> wrote:

Don't listen to schmucks on USENET when making legal decisions. Hire
yourself a competent schmuck.


Mind if I .sig this? How would you like to be attributed?
--
Aahz (aa**@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait
until you hire an amateur." --Red Adair
Nov 29 '05 #39
Aahz wrote:
In article <ma***************************************@python. org>,
Robert Kern <ro*********@gmail.com> wrote:
Don't listen to schmucks on USENET when making legal decisions. Hire
yourself a competent schmuck.


Mind if I .sig this? How would you like to be attributed?


Please do. "USENET schmuck" is a sufficient attribution if you like,
though "Robert Kern" will work, too.

--
Robert Kern
ro*********@gmail.com

"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
-- Richard Harter

Nov 29 '05 #40
In article <ma***************************************@python. org>,
Robert Kern <ro*********@gmail.com> wrote:
Aahz wrote:
In article <ma***************************************@python. org>,
Robert Kern <ro*********@gmail.com> wrote:

Don't listen to schmucks on USENET when making legal decisions. Hire
yourself a competent schmuck.


Mind if I .sig this? How would you like to be attributed?


Please do. "USENET schmuck" is a sufficient attribution if you like,
though "Robert Kern" will work, too.


Great!
--
Aahz (aa**@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"Don't listen to schmucks on USENET when making legal decisions. Hire
yourself a competent schmuck." --USENET schmuck (aka Robert Kern)
Nov 29 '05 #41
Robert Kern <ro*********@gmail.com> writes:
Is that why the CC Public Domain Dedication has the subtitle
"Copyright-Only Dedication (based on United States law) or Public Domain
Certification"?

Lessig isn't sure. E.g. http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001066.shtml


Hmm, interesting, thanks.
When I wrote Mr. Rosen asking about it, he didn't answer.

He's a lawyer. Getting a legal opinion from him costs money.


A legal opinion means something specific. I didn't ask him for one.
Nov 29 '05 #42
Paul Rubin <http://ph****@NOSPAM.invalid> writes:
Lessig isn't sure. E.g. http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001066.shtml

Hmm, interesting, thanks.


Bah, the CC link from there leads to a Zope crash (at least right now):

http://creativecommons.org/license/publicdomain-direct

KeyError
Sorry, a site error occurred.

Traceback (innermost last):

* Module ZPublisher.Publish, line 175, in publish_module_standard
* Module Products.PlacelessTranslationService.PatchStringIO , line 51, in new_publish
* Module ZPublisher.Publish, line 132, in publish
* Module Zope.App.startup, line 204, in zpublisher_exception_hook
...
Nov 29 '05 #43
"Andrew Koenig" <ar*@acm.org> writes:
"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86************@bhuda.mired.org...
Definitely not. The most recent change to the copyright laws made
works of music recorded to fullfill a contract "work for hire" by
default.

If there's a contract -- i.e., a written agreement, then why does it matter?


The default applies if the contract doesn't say who owns the
work. This was a move by the recording companies so they could get
ownership of works simply by not saying who owned it.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
Nov 29 '05 #44
Paul Rubin wrote:
Paul Rubin <http://ph****@NOSPAM.invalid> writes:
Lessig isn't sure. E.g. http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001066.shtml


Hmm, interesting, thanks.


Bah, the CC link from there leads to a Zope crash (at least right now):

http://creativecommons.org/license/publicdomain-direct


This is the current URL:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/

--
Robert Kern
ro*********@gmail.com

"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
-- Richard Harter

Nov 29 '05 #45
Robert Kern <ro*********@gmail.com> writes:
This is the current URL:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/


Thanks, yeah, I remember seeing that, which is what made me say that
CC recognized PD dedications (at least in the US--it's unreasonable to
expect to account for every weird law some country on earth might come
up with). So now I'm perplexed about Lessig's blog post. I'll see if
I can ask him about it sometime. I just emailed him the cr.yp.to url
that I linked earlier.

Nov 30 '05 #46
Steven D'Aprano <st***@REMOVETHIScyber.com.au> writes:
Then probably the best licence to use is just to follow the lead of
Python. For that sort of small program of limited value, I put something
like this in the code:

Copyright (c) 2005 Steven D'Aprano.
Released under the same license as used by Python 2.3.2 itself.
I've done that too, but some other post mentions that the Python
license is written specifically for Python and can't be used as a
"subroutine". The original GNU Emacs license (forerunner of the GPL)
was the same way: it said stuff like "you may distribute copies of
Emacs if..." instead of "you may distribute copies of this program
if...". The GPL was the result of abstracting the Emacs license so it
could be applied to other programs, but doing the abstraction took
considerable thought. It wasn't just a matter of patching up stuff
like the above.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but I suggest that your
*only* defence will be to get your employer to sign a legal agreement
acknowledging that you own the code. If you like, offer them a perpetual
royalty-free non-exclusive licence to use the code, and explain how using
your own code will make you more productive in their time.
They may want to use it in a closed source product (GPL-incompatible)
which means in the case of GPL code, they want an exception to the
GPL. In the case of GPL code written by me, I'm generally unwilling
to grant such exceptions, since part of my purpose of using the GPL is
to attract other contributors. The company then has to decide,
either: a) accept the GPL; b) don't use the code, and do something
else instead, which may end up costing more.
If they refuse, then you must absolutely keep a cast-iron barrier between
what you develop in your own time and what you develop in theirs.
In some jurisdictions even such a cast-iron barrier might not be enough.
Unless you explicitly sign them away (and even that is legally dubious)
you still retain the "moral rights" to the code,
The US doesn't recognize "moral rights".
Please note that merely putting the code under a GPL or other OSS licence
is NOT sufficient -- they must agree to let you DISTRIBUTE the code.
If it's under the GPL, they're not allowed to prevent you from
distributing it, if you have a copy.
It need not be a complicated agreement:


Certainly, the best policy is to discuss things beforehand and write
out an agreement, instead of relying on faulty memory, or springing
surprises.
Nov 30 '05 #47
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> writes:
Definitely not. The most recent change to the copyright laws made
works of music recorded to fullfill a contract "work for hire" by
default....

The default applies if the contract doesn't say who owns the
work. This was a move by the recording companies so they could get
ownership of works simply by not saying who owned it.


The trick was even worse than that. The way I've seen it explained,
work for hire is supposed to apply only to certain kinds of works done
under an employer's specific direction. For example, a company might
employ someone to write data sheets for transistors. They are told
what to write about, when to write, what template the data sheets
should follow, etc. That can be a work for hire. The copyright
belongs entirely to the company and the author retains zero interest.
But something like an all-original novel cannot be a work for hire
even if the publisher employed someone to write it and paid him a
salary for doing so. The author can sign over certain of the rights,
but retains certain other rights regardless of what any contract he's
signed might say. In particular the author can reclaim the copyright
after 35 years. This was an escape hatch made as copyrights got
longer and longer (they originally maxed out after 28 years).

An original music album, like a novel, couldn't be a work for hire
until they snuck in that change, as described in the Courtney Love
article. That meant record companies could keep the records forever.
But I heard that the change has since been reversed.
Nov 30 '05 #48
Paul Rubin wrote:
That is the guy who claims it is impossible to release anything into
the public domain, other than by dying and then waiting 70 years.


Is that an indirect reference to the following article?

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225

Paul

Nov 30 '05 #49
Paul Boddie wrote:
Paul Rubin wrote:
That is the guy who claims it is impossible to release anything into
the public domain, other than by dying and then waiting 70 years.


Is that an indirect reference to the following article?

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225


Among other places where Rosen has said it, like his book.

--
Robert Kern
ro*********@gmail.com

"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
-- Richard Harter

Nov 30 '05 #50

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

8
by: madcap | last post by:
Hi, Our company was looking for contract programmer to develop an internet/intranet application. We were approached by a freelancer who have quite a lot experience and his resume was...
8
by: simo | last post by:
OK, so I'm at the stage where I want to make a choice between wxPython and PyQt. Currently I'm using wxPython mainly due to the fact that it has GPL Linux and Windows versions. I prefer Qt to...
9
by: Daniel Keep | last post by:
I'm currently working on a Python program, and was wondering if it's possible to license the program, some associated tools, and a few other libraries I've written under the Python license. I...
18
by: Antoon Pardon | last post by:
I have made a module derived from the Queue module deliverd with python 2.3. I would like to make this module (called tube) available for other people. However it is not clear to me how I can do...
2
by: Amine | last post by:
Hi ALL, I am trying to add a license agreement to my setup project. I have added the lic.rtf file to the setup project and added the "License Agreement" dialog to the setup. But when I run the...
122
by: seberino | last post by:
I'm interested in knowing which Python web framework is most like Ruby on Rails. I've heard of Subway and Django. Are there other Rails clones in Python land I don't know about? Which one...
24
by: invitro81 | last post by:
Hello I've recently learnt python and I do love it! I congratulate all those geeks who produce this nice language; well, because I could be called a nearby newbee I've decided to improve my...
2
by: yawnmoth | last post by:
The PHP license states the following: 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written permission from group@php.net. ...
14
by: Frank Rizzo | last post by:
I've been given a project to work with which involves connecting to MySQL from .NET 2.0 app. I've googled looked and there is a metric ton of different MySQL ADO.NET providers from different...
0
by: DolphinDB | last post by:
Tired of spending countless mintues downsampling your data? Look no further! In this article, you’ll learn how to efficiently downsample 6.48 billion high-frequency records to 61 million...
0
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
0
by: Vimpel783 | last post by:
Hello! Guys, I found this code on the Internet, but I need to modify it a little. It works well, the problem is this: Data is sent from only one cell, in this case B5, but it is necessary that data...
0
by: jfyes | last post by:
As a hardware engineer, after seeing that CEIWEI recently released a new tool for Modbus RTU Over TCP/UDP filtering and monitoring, I actively went to its official website to take a look. It turned...
0
by: ArrayDB | last post by:
The error message I've encountered is; ERROR:root:Error generating model response: exception: access violation writing 0x0000000000005140, which seems to be indicative of an access violation...
1
by: PapaRatzi | last post by:
Hello, I am teaching myself MS Access forms design and Visual Basic. I've created a table to capture a list of Top 30 singles and forms to capture new entries. The final step is a form (unbound)...
1
by: CloudSolutions | last post by:
Introduction: For many beginners and individual users, requiring a credit card and email registration may pose a barrier when starting to use cloud servers. However, some cloud server providers now...
0
by: af34tf | last post by:
Hi Guys, I have a domain whose name is BytesLimited.com, and I want to sell it. Does anyone know about platforms that allow me to list my domain in auction for free. Thank you
0
by: Faith0G | last post by:
I am starting a new it consulting business and it's been a while since I setup a new website. Is wordpress still the best web based software for hosting a 5 page website? The webpages will be...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.