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

[Russell McOrmond]

On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 11:51 AM Gil Yehuda via License-discuss <
license-discuss at lists.opensource.org> wrote:

> Thank you Stuart, you are right. The fear of losing control is a big part
> of this. Josh, indeed. All code is based on other code. This is why there's
> such a conflict. Russel, I'm asking about all code authors because there
> are many ways to view this.
>

There are many views, and there are policy implications for each.

I think the concept of "property" is often unhelpful in some cultures, as
it brings out the most selfish of ideas : rights without any
responsibility.  This isn't helpful for intangibles generally, and software
rules running on someone elses computer and governing their lives more
specifically (Lessig's Code is law).

The other is conflating different areas of law -- I believe Richard
Stallman's long-time opposition to the term "intellectual property" was
correct, in that trade and other secrets (passwords) are entirely different
than the regulation of creativity (authoring software).  Whether or not the
person authored some software, they never at any time had any type of claim
to the passwords.   US DMCA takedowns aren't helpful as it isn't strictly a
copyright issue, and believing that "since all I have is a hammer,
everything must be a nail" of claiming stronger copyright will solve
everything is also IMO counterproductive.


Sometimes she'll say, "but it's my code." and I'll say, technically it's
> work for hire that you assigned the copyrights to the company, but I
> understand you feel like it's yours.
>


All the complex exceptions in copyright law, specific to each country, are
also problematic.   If Copyright was vested in the human author and
couldn't be transferred this would make many things more clear.  Then the
granting of a sub-licenseable license (exclusive or otherwise) in the
employment contract would be clear, and nobody would ever be making
assumptions as to what the relationship is.  Put things down on paper,
ensure the employee understands, and point back to what they signed if they
ever breach that contract.

Sharing internal information is a violation of an agreement you signed.
>

In this specific scenario I'm not sure how their feelings about how they
feel about what they authored mattered.  It is a question of breach of
contract, assuming the specific clauses are enforceable.

My experience has been that few employers have given this adequate thought,
and I'm usually the one bringing up patent and copyright issues as I want
to ensure that any code I author can be shared with the appropriate FLOSS
projects.  I don't care who holds the copyright, as long as the appropriate
FLOSS license agreement and the contribution is enabled by the employment
contract (and yes, I have negotiated changes to otherwise standard
contracts with IBM, Fujitsu and others to ensure that my work could be
contributed).

-- 
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>

"The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or portable
media player from my cold dead hands!" http://c11.ca/own
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200301/4026ffd5/attachment.html>