[consulting] Proper Collections Procedure

[Laura Scott]

On Aug 17, 2006, at 9:20 AM, Henri Poole wrote:

> On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 09:10 -0600, Laura Scott wrote:
>>> Be prepared to deliver incomplete, intermediate code if they want
>>> it - if they're paying every two weeks, they own the stuff you've
>>> done for what they've paid.
>>
>> This would apply only in work-for-hire situations. In the US, unless
>> the contract explicitly says it's work-for-hire, or you're an
>> employee of the company, then the contract itself is where what is
>> owed to whom upon termination is all specified. A contractor owns all
>> legal and moral rights to her work until and unless she assigns
>> rights or licensing to the client, but for a work-for-hire contractor
>> or employee, legal and moral rights to his work are owned by his
>> employer or contractor. (IANAL, so please don't count on this as
>> legal advice.)
>
> It is more complicated. Most of the code is available only under  
> the GPL
> or AGPL license. These licenses require that you stick to their  
> license
> for derivatives.

I agree, and was not speaking to GPL licensed code. I was talking  
more about design work and custom widgets.

>>
>> It feels like "negative thinking" to have clear terms about
>> termination and breach, but all the smart advice I've gotten over the
>> years is to protect oneself with appropriate terms (whatever you're
>> comfortable with).
>
> The contract is not really negative thinking. It's a requirement for
> title. Look at the entire free software and open source movement.
> Without good legal underpinnings, there can be a big hassle for large
> corporations have the clear ability use the code.
>
> With DRM in hardware coming down the pipe, we better have clear  
> title to
> our works, and we need to protect our clients by advising them on best
> practices. It's a favor to our clients to give them clear title.

I was speaking about termination clauses, not GPL. Just to  
clarify.... :)

Laura