[consulting] copyright policies

[DragonWize]

As a developer and an open source advocate I like be more free natured. I
believe that IP has less to do with success then most people think. I've
seen brilliant ideas go south because a company with more marketing skill or
customer service made something of much lesser value and crushed them.

Or if your IP is valuable enough people will reverse engineer it and make a
free version and sometimes even make it better (Helvetica vs Arial, .NET vs
Mono, Firewire vs USB, etc).

I realize that it is in our human nature to be protective so our greed
chimes in and offers a solution. So I don't expect everyone to understand
this concept now or maybe never. But I do have hope seeing the expansive
growth of FOSS.

I have had clients ask for the code to be not used elsewhere. So far my
standard response is to charge the code for what is worth instead of it's
cost in labor. For instance, we are doing a site for a pizza company with
online ordering. We are charging them the money it costs us to build it. But
we plan on being able to use that code to build other pizza sites quickly
(obviously with different designs and not exactly the same but much of the
backend can easily be used and completely change the front end). Lets say we
are charging the client $10k and they ask for the code to be exclusive, I
might use that code for 20 sites so that code is actually worth $200k so
that is what the price is for it to be exclusive. They could also chose to
pay a middle ground and I won't use it on as many other sites.

You see this model in visual creative works all the time in website designs,
photography, and even in art where you can by a print, the original, or the
original and no others will be made. Each level is more as you go from open
to exclusive. I see my code as being just as creative in many cases as a
design or painting and so treat it as such.

In that aspect, although I have not thought about it that way yet, I agree
with Ric. You are hiring someone for their skill not their tools. Just the
same as if you had a great idea for a house design. If you hire a not so
great contractor you still pay him cheap, if you hire a great contractor you
pay him well. And at the same time you don't keep his tools when they are
done and he may never build a house that looks like yours again but he has
every right to use the new method of mixing concrete that he came up with
while making your vision come to life. If he couldn't take those lessons are
reapply them no one would be great at anything because you would have to try
and re-invent the wheel for every project. This also shows that no matter
how much of an idea of yours is original if you have to hire someone else to
build, create, or code it then the final product has more creativity and
original work than your own. Because someone had to use their own creative
work and skill to make your vision come to life.

Alan

On Jan 25, 2008 12:49 AM, <paola.dimaio at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Ric,
> I agree, but only in part.
>
> I have designed 'functionalities' that were not there, they did not exist
> that is because as a user, I spotted a requirement and asked a
> developer to encode it
> I ask the developers to a)not reuse it for at least one year. I am not
> paying you so that you can go and sell my business intelligence to
> others  2) do not sell it to my competitors for as long as I am i
> business
>
> if its an open source solution I am working with, I generally release
> a portion of it for public use.
>
> this is commonly done. every large company that uses open source will
> not release
> all the functionalities that are giving their business a competitive
> market edge,  while also making some contributions to public code.
>
> i think there should be a time cap to such restrictions however.
>
> its very difficult to tell whether a developer is respecting the non
> compete clause however
>
> cheers
> P
>
> On Jan 25, 2008 12:39 PM, Ric Shreves <ric at waterandstone.com> wrote:
> > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> consulting mailing list
> consulting at drupal.org
> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
>



-- 
Alan Doucette
Koi Technology, LLC
www.KoiTech.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/consulting/attachments/20080125/335d0236/attachment.htm