[consulting] copyright policies
Ric Shreves
ric at waterandstone.com
Fri Jan 25 05:39:06 UTC 2008
If we, as developers, were not allowed to re-use code, then the
impacts on pricing (and timelines) would be considerable (and
negative). The reality of the situation is that code libraries are an
integral part of a dev firm -- just as form libraries are integral
parts of a lawyer's tools.
At the end of the day, the client sd be paying for your expertise. The
code is just a tool. As long as you are not re-selling the client's
solution, lock, stock and barrel, then I see no problem -- either
legal or ethical
best,
ric
On Jan 24, 2008, at 11:51 PM, consulting-request at drupal.org wrote:
> Send consulting mailing list submissions to
> consulting at drupal.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> consulting-request at drupal.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> consulting-owner at drupal.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of consulting digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: copyright policies (Kevin Amerson)
> 2. Re: copyright policies (Boris Mann)
> 3. Re: copyright policies (Kevin Amerson)
> 4. Re: copyright policies (DragonWize)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:00:01 -0600
> From: "Kevin Amerson" <kevin.amerson at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [consulting] copyright policies
> To: "A list for Drupal consultants and Drupal service/hosting
> providers" <consulting at drupal.org>
> Message-ID:
> <68f7cf9d0801240900k70dbab1cpa4ddbc26d018a462 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Does the non-compete cover this scenario?
>
> Client A pays you for a solution to problem A that directly ties to
> their
> business. You retain the ability to reuse the code as you stated.
>
> Client B is a direct competitor to Client A and comes to you for a
> solution
> to the same problem.
>
> You gladly hand them the same code tailored to them.
>
> Who is competing with who? In essence, Client A just paid to help
> out their
> competitor, Client B.
>
> I was a consultant for over 4 years and never under any
> circumstances would
> we be allowed to reuse a solution built for one client for another
> client.
> We were expensive, however, the client kept everything always.
>
> On Jan 24, 2008 10:28 AM, Bill Fitzgerald <bill at funnymonkey.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello, Robert,
>>
>> We have a developer's agreement that we have clients sign as part
>> of the
>> process of starting a job. In that, we clearly identify who gets
>> what.
>>
>> A quick breakdown (and as we are a US company, this is based on US
>> law
>> -- our lawyers are familiar with Open Source law, and actually do
>> some
>> work with the OSL) -- Our goal was to ensure that the code we wrote
>> would always be available to us to reuse, and would always be
>> released/covered under the GPL:
>>
>> Client's pre-existing IP remains their property.
>> Our pre-existing IP remains our property.
>> Project IP (ie, any solutions derived as a direct result of the work)
>> belong to the client.
>> Any code that executes the Project IP belongs to the client, as it is
>> work for hire.
>> Any code we develop for a client, while remaining the property of the
>> client, is licensed back to us for re-use in perpetuity. Our contract
>> also has a non-compete clause, so that we can't set up (or become)
>> competitors to our clients. It seems obvious, but some clients are
>> actually worried about that :)
>> Any code we develop is also licensed under the GPL, and we usually
>> negotiate the mechanics of the release with the client.
>>
>> When our lawyers first generated this, it seemed overly elaborate
>> to me,
>> but it gets the job done, as we are never in a situation where we
>> can't
>> access our own work.
>>
>> WRT "Are you having similar conflicts with the businesses hiring
>> you as
>> developers and their copyright policies?" -- we have had situations
>> in
>> the past where people have balked at developing GPL code. For us,
>> it was
>> a clear flag that the client might not be the best fit for us, and I
>> communicated that very clearly to the client.
>>
>> Good luck -- it's a sticky issue for some people, particularly
>> those who
>> are unfamiliar with the benefits of working in an Open Source
>> ecosystem.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> Robert Garrig?s Castro wrote:
>>> I'm having a bit of an issue with a new employer on the copyright of
>>> the code I will write for them and I wonder what copyright policies
>>> other freelance drupal developers have.
>>>
>>> I tend to ask to keep authorship of the code and have my name into
>>> the
>>> code as the author, although I yield all other rights to the
>>> employer.
>>> Is this a normal procedure for anybody else? Are you having similar
>>> conflicts with the businesses hiring you as developers and their
>>> copyright policies?
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Robert Garrig?s
>>> -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
>>> -- --
>>> P?gina professional / /Professional web page/
>>> http://garrigos.cat
>>>
>>> drupal punt cat: Grup d'Usuaris de Drupal en Catal?
>>> http://drupal.cat <http://www.drupal.cat>
>>> -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
>>> -- --
>>>
>>> P * Si no ?s necessari, no imprimeixis aquest correu.*
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> consulting mailing list
>>> consulting at drupal.org
>>> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bill Fitzgerald
>> http://www.funnymonkey.com
>> Tools for Teachers
>> 503.897.7160
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> consulting mailing list
>> consulting at drupal.org
>> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/consulting/attachments/20080124/f3ad4b4b/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:35:47 -0800
> From: Boris Mann <boris at bryght.com>
> Subject: Re: [consulting] copyright policies
> To: A list for Drupal consultants and Drupal service/hosting providers
> <consulting at drupal.org>
> Message-ID: <A1430775-3DBD-4B14-9108-42E9DAED68D9 at bryght.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
> On 24-Jan-08, at 9:00 AM, Kevin Amerson wrote:
>
>> Does the non-compete cover this scenario?
>>
>> Client A pays you for a solution to problem A that directly ties to
>> their business. You retain the ability to reuse the code as you
>> stated.
>>
>> Client B is a direct competitor to Client A and comes to you for a
>> solution to the same problem.
>>
>> You gladly hand them the same code tailored to them.
>
> Or rather, after Client A, you submit it to Drupal.org with
> sponsorship from Client A.
>
> Client B wants extra functionality. You add it, and Client A gets it
> "for free".
>
>>
>> Who is competing with who? In essence, Client A just paid to help
>> out their competitor, Client B.
>>
>> I was a consultant for over 4 years and never under any
>> circumstances would we be allowed to reuse a solution built for one
>> client for another client. We were expensive, however, the client
>> kept everything always.
>
>
>
> --
> Boris Mann
> Office 604-682-2889
> http://www.bryght.com
> Jabber boris at bryght.com
> Skype borismann
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/consulting/attachments/20080124/a68fac70/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:07:23 -0600
> From: "Kevin Amerson" <kevin.amerson at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [consulting] copyright policies
> To: "A list for Drupal consultants and Drupal service/hosting
> providers" <consulting at drupal.org>
> Message-ID:
> <68f7cf9d0801241107h66951664m12eb298062a4a4a9 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Yes that's a good point Boris, saying that something is GPL and
> available
> for the public is quite different than actually following that and
> making it
> publicly available. I hope that the latter is the case here.
>
> Kevin
>
> On Jan 24, 2008 12:35 PM, Boris Mann <boris at bryght.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 24-Jan-08, at 9:00 AM, Kevin Amerson wrote:
>>
>> Does the non-compete cover this scenario?
>>
>> Client A pays you for a solution to problem A that directly ties to
>> their
>> business. You retain the ability to reuse the code as you stated.
>>
>> Client B is a direct competitor to Client A and comes to you for a
>> solution to the same problem.
>>
>> You gladly hand them the same code tailored to them.
>>
>>
>> Or rather, after Client A, you submit it to Drupal.org with
>> sponsorship
>> from Client A.
>>
>> Client B wants extra functionality. You add it, and Client A gets
>> it "for
>> free".
>>
>>
>> Who is competing with who? In essence, Client A just paid to help
>> out
>> their competitor, Client B.
>>
>> I was a consultant for over 4 years and never under any circumstances
>> would we be allowed to reuse a solution built for one client for
>> another
>> client. We were expensive, however, the client kept everything
>> always.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Boris Mann
>> Office 604-682-2889
>> http://www.bryght.com
>> Jabber boris at bryght.com
>> Skype borismann
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> consulting mailing list
>> consulting at drupal.org
>> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
>>
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/consulting/attachments/20080124/9b3c892e/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:21:10 -0500
> From: DragonWize <dragonwize at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [consulting] copyright policies
> To: "A list for Drupal consultants and Drupal service/hosting
> providers" <consulting at drupal.org>
> Message-ID:
> <f5b352220801241121o68c68405wff260dbd0d16366b at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> GPL and open source has their advantages and disadvantages as does
> proprietary systems. Each developer/company has to look at the cost,
> benefit, and final value the different styles will have for them. For
> the clients that have a problem with Client B getting access to Client
> A's code they paid for then open source is probably not for them.
>
> However, some companies are starting to come around to the value that
> open source has. Look at Sony and Warner Bros., I am sure they are
> each using drupal code that they them and other music people have
> created and committed back to the project.
>
> Open source is not for everyone but for those that it is good for
> understand that Client B may get their code for free but are willing
> to take that chance for the benefits offered in return.
>
> Alan
>
> On Jan 24, 2008 2:07 PM, Kevin Amerson <kevin.amerson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Yes that's a good point Boris, saying that something is GPL and
>> available
>> for the public is quite different than actually following that and
>> making it
>> publicly available. I hope that the latter is the case here.
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 24, 2008 12:35 PM, Boris Mann <boris at bryght.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 24-Jan-08, at 9:00 AM, Kevin Amerson wrote:
>>>
>>> Does the non-compete cover this scenario?
>>>
>>> Client A pays you for a solution to problem A that directly ties
>>> to their
>> business. You retain the ability to reuse the code as you stated.
>>>
>>> Client B is a direct competitor to Client A and comes to you for a
>> solution to the same problem.
>>>
>>> You gladly hand them the same code tailored to them.
>>>
>>>
>>> Or rather, after Client A, you submit it to Drupal.org with
>>> sponsorship
>> from Client A.
>>>
>>>
>>> Client B wants extra functionality. You add it, and Client A gets
>>> it "for
>> free".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Who is competing with who? In essence, Client A just paid to help
>>> out
>> their competitor, Client B.
>>>
>>> I was a consultant for over 4 years and never under any
>>> circumstances
>> would we be allowed to reuse a solution built for one client for
>> another
>> client. We were expensive, however, the client kept everything
>> always.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Boris Mann
>>> Office 604-682-2889
>>> http://www.bryght.com
>>> Jabber boris at bryght.com
>>> Skype borismann
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> consulting mailing list
>>> consulting at drupal.org
>>> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> consulting mailing list
>> consulting at drupal.org
>> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Alan Doucette
> Koi Technology, LLC
> www.KoiTech.net
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> consulting mailing list
> consulting at drupal.org
> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
>
>
> End of consulting Digest, Vol 26, Issue 14
> ******************************************
>
Ric Shreves
ric at waterandstone.com
Skype: waterandstone
AIM: ricshreves
MSN Messenger: waterandstonebali at hotmail.com
Y! Messenger: ricoflan2000
http://www.WaterAndStone.com
More information about the consulting
mailing list