[consulting] copyright policies
Ric Shreves
ric at waterandstone.com
Fri Jan 25 08:43:55 UTC 2008
Great discussion. I'm digging this list...
I suppose I sd have added the caveat: "Of course you can always
contract to the contrary."
If you are in a situation as "P" describes, the proper course is to
respect the agreement you have entered into and protect the client's
rights. My observation was more broad -- a general principle which may
not apply in a specific situation.
Just a quick bit of insight: I used to practice law (ironically, given
the current discussion, IP law!) and one of the complaints we always
heard was why we, as lawyers, charged everyone the full price every
single time we used what was essentially a boilerplate (template)
document. No one in that field blinks an eye at re-using those
documents to do the job. The view in that field is that the client is
paying for their experience, their advice & counsel, and the execution
of a task which the client is either unwilling or unable to do for
themselves.
Best regards,
ric
On Jan 25, 2008, at 12:42 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 (DragonWize)
> 2. Re: copyright policies (paola.dimaio at gmail.com)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 02:53:43 -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:
> <f5b352220801242353q408a2cadu84324f133112b975 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:12:51 +0700
> From: paola.dimaio 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:
> <c09b00eb0801250012i5d5fe57au76cb0ead5364e420 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 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.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> consulting mailing list
> consulting at drupal.org
> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
>
>
> End of consulting Digest, Vol 26, Issue 16
> ******************************************
>
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