|
Joan M wrote: The problem with ethic is that is not usable in a trial.
You missed my point : My statement was, as soon as you reuse, you are breaking the IP law. Even if you rewrite it from memory, it is illegal.
This does not necessarily mean that you risk something in a trial, since there is the part where interpretation kicks in. In more situations than not, you do not risk anything.
But under this assumption, it is up to you to choose where you set the border line for you, hence the ethic limit.
Joan M wrote: once I've done that for one customer I won't be able to control a SIEMENS drive anymore
Yes you can, but not using the same code that the one you used for the first customer.
Again, practically, this does not make sense, however, it is how IP works.
|
|
|
|
|
then the only REAL way to do it is:
I'm the owner of it (IP).
And I license the code to be used in all possible circumstances by my customer.
Then I can reuse what is mine, and they also can.
|
|
|
|
|
The problem exists in Permanent employment as well. I had a contract that changed wording to (something like) 'all inventions, writings, creations etc done during the time that you are employed by the company become the property of the company'. I challenged by progressively weakening their responses. I queried if that meant that if I made a rocking horse (a creation) on a weekend whether they owned it (it was not a creation relevant to their business and whilst still employed by the company I was not 'on the clock'). Then challenged if ideas I've had for personal projects (by the previous response owned by me) could be used in their projects (they agreed that that was acceptable; otherwise I'd have to delete huge chunks of code written for them that included 'my' stuff). And then I asked about generic routines / utilities designed 'off the clock' but modified for their use 'on the clock'. At this stage, the management handed the problem to the Lawyers. Over a year later, I got a reply - read out over the phone and told that I would not see the written version. This, pragmatically, said they understood that you cannot carve up 'own' and 'company' work and they were happy for me to reuse anything that did not include company owned products or services and that I must remove any references to the company in the code (this was to remove any liability for them if anything untowards happen as a consequence someone using code that could be traced back to them). No, I cannot tell you who the company was (even though it does not exist any more).
I suppose that I was fortunate.
As a Freelancer, if you run as a limited company (or whatever the equivalent is where you live), then you work for yourself and you can make the same rules as they have. Namely, all code written as an employee of the company (you) belongs to the company (you). If they want access to your code, you can provide a perpetual one-off license for it at the cost equal to the cost of your contract with them. That means you get paid for it, they have the code, you have the copyright. (Actually, copyright has its own bonus. If you put a copyright for yourself in the code and they remove it then the code they have is not whatg you wrote for them and, if they get stroppy about it, you could bluff them for a breach of your copyright).
|
|
|
|
|
Anything you wrote before the contract is fair game. They don't own it, they own the way you combined it to make what they wrote
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not a freelancer, nor do I understand the robotics angle, so huge chunk of salt here...
Discuss with client, getting them to understand that you create/reuse libraries for common operations like logging (for example). Those things are not custom, thus not proprietary to their project, and they cannot have the source.
Once that meeting is over and you've established an understanding, consider whether the client is worth it. Remember that it's o.k. to turn down business for a number of reasons, the client being too much of a PITA is one.
Good luck!
|
|
|
|
|
Personally, I would move on to another client.
My old contracts stated that the client's intellectual property belonged to them and the consultant's intellectual property belonged to the consultant. When I would not provide the software, the attorneys argued over what this meant. My attorney, of course said the source code belonged to me. We settled, but they never got the source code.
The next time this came up, I was clear with the client what the IP clause meant. I explained that they would have the right to sell the end product and I would be available to customize the software for their needs under a separate contract. They tried to sell the software, but the prospective buyer demanded the source code, so my client sued me. I hired an IP attorney to handle the situation, but costs mounted. It was looking like it would cost me $40K to settle the case in mediation, so I took another friend's advice: He had been in a similar situation and when he made the final payment on his $50K attorney fees, his attorney told him that he should have just walked away. This is what I did. They didn't get the source code and the next year they filed for bankruptcy.
The last situation was a lot easier to resolve. I provided the client a contract that specifically said they would not get the source code. They thought that they were smarter than me, so they didn't sign the contract. At the end of the project, they owed me a couple thousand dollars, but demanded that I provide the source code before they would make the final payment. I suggested that they contact an attorney. In case you don't know it, the contractor owns the source code unless the right is specifically stated in a contract (if you are an employee, the source code belongs to the company). Their attorney advised them to pay or I would own their company. They paid up with no attorney cost for me. Easy-peasy! Never saw the client again.
Everything I developed was on my own equipment using commercial software, which I paid for. If the clients had gotten the source code, it would have been useless for them because they didn't have any of the commercial software packages.
Again, I recommend walking away from the contract. If you need to talk to an attorney, you need an Intellectual Property (IP) Attorney.
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
You could place a copyright notice in the header of any pre-existing code files that you plan to use, and provide a license file pertaining to that code. Perhaps you could persuade them to accept something licensed under The MIT License[^]
Handling code snippets might be tricky, but if they are trivial, you could just rewrite them slightly for this customer. This Stack Exchange post may be helpful: copyright - How does fair use apply to code snippets? - Software Engineering Stack Exchange[^]
Caveat: I am not a lawyer, but this is the type of approach I would use.
|
|
|
|
|
Could you grant the customer an appropriate non-exclusive licence to the code? One that satisfies their desire to have a copy of the source that they can keep and modify, but they are not the sole owners of that code? Probably most important to you is that you don't want them to be able to restrict you from using it elsewhere, even on a competitor's project. That's the same kind of license they'd be getting from any open source code you used in their project.
If you're developing the code you're claiming ownership of at the same time as working on their project, then you might have difficulty proving you didn't charge them for developing that code, thereby making them the owner of it instead of you. So don't do that.
|
|
|
|
|
1. Explain that there are some code sections in the form of existing source code which are *already part of your own IP* and therefore you are unwilling to allow the customer to "own" these. However you are willing to provide a free license for the customer to use and redistribute said functions as part of the final binary. Or let them take the code and develop based on it freely without owing you anything else.
1a. Side-option here is to very quickly open-source that code, now the customer literally cannot own it, downside is, neither do you. But at least it's pretty easy to explain - "some parts of this code cannot comply with the contract as they are open-sourced under the 'Do whatever you want' license"
If you are OK with that then this probably a good option as it forces the customer to compromise on the contract text.
2. If #1/1a doesn't fly and the customer refuses to modify the agreement - then your price just went up by a factor of 10-50. I'm not joking - the customer is essentially asking you to hand over something that is *already your IP*, and for that they need to pay, since you could get into legal issues later on if you ever re-use that code so you must be compensated for the loss of that IP.
If a client refused to budge on this I'd fire them, I know that might not be an option for you but I would encourage you to dig your heels in a little bit on this. Chances are this is not the customer trying to own all your stuff out of greed, just a case of a standard contract where the customer wants to make sure you don't screw them later on by claiming ownership of the final codebase in its entirety, of do a bait and switch by forcing them to "licen$e these functions I own" later on.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 10346655 wrote: Side-option here is to very quickly open-source that code, now the customer literally cannot own it, downside is, neither do you
Open sourcing doesn't affect ownership. At least in the US, the copyright holder owns the code and distributes the code with a license. The license states what is required to use or extend the software. Most open source software uses one of a few well-known licenses such as the GPL, LGPL, MIT, BSD, or Apache.
|
|
|
|
|
Set up a separate corporation to own the shared library, and license the shared library from the other corporation.
For best case, have the customer also license the shared library directly under a maintenance agreement.
|
|
|
|
|
Joan M wrote: - The customer wants you to sign down a confidentiality contract in which it states that the source code is customer's property.
Confidentiality is not ownership.
Things that you explicitelly develope for them, OK.
Snippets that you own before working for them, should not be affected.
Things that are everyday functions is just not possible... they don't own "hello world", "foo", "boo", the .Net Framework or the windows API.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
yes... those should be 2 separate documents, but their lawyer made a strange mix there...
^^¡
and I'm not worried about confidentiality... but for being able to reuse code in the future...
|
|
|
|
|
Joan M wrote: but for being able to reuse code in the future...
As others said...
Before pasting your functions to their project... CTRL+H (find and replace) and use var1, var2 and so on...  
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
And when they ask about it just look at them with a mad man look and say "who is the crazy one now hu? hu?"
|
|
|
|
|
Hi All,
The dratted Win 8 or Win Hate as it was dubbed, I would have thought it was dead and buried. However someone in Site Data has to use Win 8 as the program, drivers won't work on Win 10? First I have heard of Win 10 playing up with Win 8... Any other known issues I have missed? 
|
|
|
|
|
Did they increase so much the version number that they needed to write as 8! ?
GCS d--(d+) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
Nahh! It's interface was such a surprise...
|
|
|
|
|
Nah.
Geek of Computer Science
Dress : I'm usually in jeans and a t-shirt.
Shape : I'm a little rounder than most.
Age : My age is 25-29.
Computers (I'm currently paid for it) : Computers are a large part of my existence. When I get up in the morning, the first thing I do is log myself in. I play games or mud on weekends, but still manage to stay off of academic probation.
UNIXUL++++
Perl : I know of perl. I like perl. I just haven't learned much perl, but it is on my agenda.
Linux : I am a Linux wizard. I munch C code for breakfast and have enough room left over for a kernel debugging. I have so many patches installed that I lost track about ten versions ago. Linux newbies consider me a net.god.
Emacs : Emacs sucks! vi forever!!!
World Wide Web : I have a homepage. I surf daily. My homepage is advertised in my signature.
Usenet : I read news recreationally when I have some time to kill.
I choose not to categorize myself with Usenet Oracle
Kibo : I don't know who Kibo is.
MicroSoft Windows : Ok, so I use MS Windows, I don't have to like it.
I choose not to categorize myself with OS/2
I choose not to categorize myself with Macintosh
I choose not to categorize myself with VMS
Politics & Social Issues : I really don't have an opinion; nobody's messing with my freedoms right now.
Politics & Economic Issues : Distrust both government and business.
Cypherpunks : I'm pretty indifferent on the whole issue.
PGP : I have the most recent version and use it regularly.
I choose not to categorize myself with Star Trek
I choose not to categorize myself with Babylon 5
X Files : Ho hum. Just another Fox show.
Role-Playing : Gosh, what an utter waste of time!
TV : I watch tv for the news and 'special programming.'
Books : I enjoy reading, but don't get the time very often.
Dilbert : I work with people that act a lot like Dilbert and his boss.
Doom : I've played the game and I'm pretty indifferent.
Geek Code : I know what the geek code is and even did up this code.
Education : Got a Masters degree.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh thanks, you reminded me I have to adjust age. F$(k.
Also either my Doom code is wrong or the interpretation is because I got up to custom WADs, but never created them. And I love role playing.
GCS d--(d+) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
I used the translator, obviously. Did you put it up together with a tool, or "manually" ?
|
|
|
|
|
Completely manually and I think the translator is the problem at this point. Probably uses another version of Geekcode?
I see on the salvaged page that:
a
30-39 (so I did update it)
R+++
I've written and published my own gaming materials.
Given these I would dismiss that translator
GCS d--(d+) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
glennPattonWork wrote: Any other known issues I have missed?
Oh yes, lots.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: glennPattonWork wrote: Any other known issues I have missed?
Oh yes, lots.
... and even bigger than the California Gold Rush new nuggets appear daily in tributaries and areas known and [formerly] unknown. and as before the chinese being denied ownership of territory are again despite this also doing well re-working the tailings.
history repeats!
after many otherwise intelligent sounding suggestions that achieved nothing the nice folks at Technet said the only solution was to low level format my hard disk then reinstall my signature. Sadly, this still didn't fix the issue!
|
|
|
|
|
Well then "someone in Site Data" (whatever that means) needs to be made aware that Win8 (as in 8.0, I assume) is no longer under support from MS, like Vista and XP. If MS won't provide bug fixes or security updates for it, why should third-parties?
That's why your documentation should have a Requirements section.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
