[consulting] copyright policies

Fri Jan 25 08:12:51 UTC 2008

Hi Alan

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.

sure, but the design, the process and the creative ideas the developer did
not have

i can hire any developer to do the job, the developer could not hire any
client to get the
innovative functionality (that then they want to resell as their own work?
whoa)

I think for a pizza website, is relatively standard functions that already
exist, so I would not have a problem accepting that your example is OK, but
that does not apply to all cases

I am talking about functions that were not available in commercial nor open
source products before I required them, asked the devs to code them (the
creative process is in the design, implementing is a subset of design)

I think who would be profiting from someone else's work here is the
developer!
(reselling my work?)

anwyay, the warners and sony's website coders are bound to confidentiality
agreement
and cannot talk on public lists about the IP arrangements of the companies
they work for
otherwise they can be sued,

beware of the dog the does not bark

chers

PDM

On Jan 25, 2008 2:53 PM, DragonWize <dragonwize at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> consulting mailing list
> consulting at drupal.org
> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
>
>

-- 
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
*********************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/consulting/attachments/20080125/336f9d3b/attachment-0001.htm 