John Souvestre wrote:
> Hi Jeremy.
>
> > I think you may have take the term incentive to little. I'm not
> > talking about compensation, I'm talking about the ability to enjoy the
> > fruits of one's time and effort.
>
> I do count money as an incentive, but I agree that it isn't the only one. The
> rest don't go far when it comes to paying the rent, however. Or are you just
> considering part-time programmers?
No, programmers in general, but limiting it to hobby programmers might
be more apt for this discussion. By saying that the original author's
copyright overrides any claim you have to your code, you are allowing
the original programmer the ability to benefit from another person's
work. THAT is a problem.
> Also, I might consider it a negative incentive to see a company pick up
> something I wrote and sell it. They make money off my labor and I get nothing.
That is a different ball of wax.
> > Unless you have entered into an agreement AND are compensated for your
> > time while creating, the results of your effort are yours.
>
> So your view only applies to hobby efforts?>
My comment refers to employer/employee arrangements, where the rule is
that if you are in an agreement with the employer to write code for them
on company time, ownership of the rights to the code go to the company.
Consultants are different. They share ownership with the client the
last time I checked into it.
> His rights include disallowing you from patching his program. Why you wrote the
> patch and the amount of time you spent doing it is irrelevant. The author's
> rights existed before you started.
This is all predicated on the assumption that the author allows you to
patch his work. If he allows you to patch, his rights should not
extend to the code that you have written since they are not his code.
Simple as that.
J
___________________
Nolug mailing list
nolug@nolug.org
Received on 12/14/08
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 12/19/08 EST