[License-discuss] exploring the attachment between the author and the code

[Thorsten Glaser]

Gil Yehuda via License-discuss dixit:

>Sometimes she'll say, "but it's my code." and I'll say, technically it's

This is weird. I can differentiate between author and licensor.

>work for hire that you assigned the copyrights to the company, but I

Is that so in the USA? Here it reads more like the exclusive exploitation
rights belong to the employer when done as part of hired work, but the
moral rights belong to the natural person who created it. (Which is why
I’m also unhappy with “Copyright $company_name”.)

This means they mostly decide what to do with it, but it’s still mine,
and I can prevent them from defacing it or something.


This is a different kind of “mine” than I thought this thread was about,
though. This is a “legal ‘mine’” here, which I didn’t think about when
composing the mail in the other subthread.

Good night,
//mirabilos
-- 
„Cool, /usr/share/doc/mksh/examples/uhr.gz ist ja ein Grund,
mksh auf jedem System zu installieren.“
	-- XTaran auf der OpenRheinRuhr, ganz begeistert
(EN: “[…]uhr.gz is a reason to install mksh on every system.”)