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

Sun Mar 1 21:08:31 UTC 2020

Gil,

Thanks for asking the question; it is a topic that has always fascinated 
me. My belief based on my personal experience only is that software may 
be unusual in authors /not/ feeling that they have a strong sense of 
ownership of their work, regardless of who the legal owner is. I learned 
very early in my legal career that some forms of authorship (books and 
music were my experience) seem to be very personal and the authors very 
personally hurt by what they saw as misuse of their work. These are 
difficult clients because they want their hurt fixed, but the legal 
system isn't very good at that.

I don't know if it's the same phenomenon, but there is also a propensity 
in some industries to see similarity, and think their work was copied, 
when in the clear light of day it's simply not the case. I joke that 
every successful movie has a copyright infringement suit brought by 
someone who imagined similarity when there was nothing there. I don't 
doubt the sincerity of the belief of the person who thinks they were 
copied, but when you read the cases (and there are plenty), the 
similarities are very thin.

I've always wondered if software is different because it's more 
functional. There are more parameters that have to be met, so maybe it 
seems more like solving a problem rather than an exercise of pure 
creativity.

Pam

Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
pamela at chesteklegal.com
919-800-8033
www.chesteklegal.com

On 3/1/20 10:50 AM, Gil Yehuda via License-discuss 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.
>
> A few times a year I get a report of code on GitHub that contains a 
> cleartext password to a server or an account my company owns. I find a 
> (usually) former employee had published a large bundle of code on her 
> personal GitHub repo on the day she left the company. I contact her 
> and request removal of that code -- it leaks a company secret. Most of 
> the time, it's removed right away.
>
> 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. Sharing internal 
> information is a violation of an agreement you signed. Also, it 
> contains a cleartext password in the code. Do you want people to think 
> you are the kind of coder who puts passwords in code? Or the kind of 
> coder who takes the employer's code and publishes it without 
> permission first? If you would have asked, we would have reviewed the 
> code and potentially given you permission to publish it once you 
> remove the confidential information. But this was an unauthorized 
> publication, we didn't put an open source license on it, no one can 
> use it unless we do.
>
> Usually that works, but once in a while I'll hear "No. it's my code, I 
> can do whatever I want with it." and I'll say: Do you think you'd get 
> in trouble if someone used the password leaked in your code as part of 
> a larger campaign that helped them break in to our systems and expose 
> user data? "Um, I guess so." It this publication that important to you 
> that you'd take that risk? And then she takes the code down.
>
> I could simply issue a DMCA takedown to nuke the code, but I'm 
> interested when an engineer insists "that code is mine" even when it 
> is a liability. This is a different case than we typically talk about, 
> but I bring it to show that some people are attached to their code 
> since they invest considerable energy into it -- and fear that letting 
> go removes their control of the code. Indeed this is the reality of 
> the corporate-employed engineer -- but it's not always the way the 
> perceive that reality. I'm not suggesting this is ideal, but I think 
> control and trust are factors here.
>
> Gil Yehuda: I help with external technology engagement
>
> From the Open Source Program Office 
> <https://developer.yahoo.com/opensource/docs/> at Yahoo --> Oath - -> 
> Verizon Media
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 1:00 PM Russell McOrmond 
> <russellmcormond at gmail.com <mailto:russellmcormond at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 11:31 AM Gil Yehuda via License-discuss
>     <license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>     <mailto:license-discuss at lists.opensource.org>> wrote:
>
>         I'm exploring the psychological relationship between the
>         author of a work, and the work. i.e. parsing the phrase "my
>         open source code" and would like your thoughts.
>
>
>     What you appear to be asking is how proprietary people feel about
>     the software they have authored.
>
>     Google has one of the early questions I asked in gnu.misc.discuss
>     back in 1992:
>     https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/gnu.misc.discuss/PWcsCnGzDkI/DwXUQ5Lg_OwJ
>
>     I wanted to add a GPL license to my derivative of software that
>     was dedicated to the public domain, as I wanted to ensure that
>     follow-on contributions would not be able to be made proprietary
>     (meaning, software licensed primary for the benefit of a
>     proprietor). The only restriction I wanted was the restriction to
>     not allow personal/proprietary restrictions on derivatives
>     (freedom from).  This was a concept that wasn't as clear with the
>     4 software freedoms from the FSF at the time, but became much more
>     clear with the Debian Free Software guidelines that became the
>     OSD.  This includes the non-discriminatory core of the OSD,
>     understanding that demands for discrimination are personal to a
>     proprietor and thus make the license proprietary.
>
>
>     I liked what I learned in gnu.misc.discuss back in 1992, and
>     became an active part of the movement as a software contributor
>     and policy advocate.  In 2002 I was the private-sector co-founder
>     of GOSLING (Getting Open Source Logic INto Government)
>     http://goslingcommunity.org/
>     <http://goslingcommunity.org/#content> , and have been a witness
>     at various parliamentary committees, met many members of Canada's
>     federal parliament, and have been both a volunteer and paid
>     consultant to bureaucracies on FLOSS policy.
>
>
>     While I did these things, and I enjoy receiving credit for the
>     contributions I have made, I do not at all feel proprietary about
>     any of the results.  Whether my work is encoded in the form of
>     machine readable instructions (software) or human readable
>     instructions (policy, submissions to government consultations,
>     etc), I consider the work to have more value the more it is built
>     upon, and the less personal to me the results become.
>
>     One of my influences is Lawrence Lessig and his "Code and other
>     laws of cyberspace". http://codev2.cc/
>     I believe there are many things in common between software code
>     and legal code.
>
>     If the elected official who introduced a bill in a parliament kept
>     referring to it as "my law" after it passed and became the law of
>     the land, people would not be respectful of that proprietary
>     perspective.  If there was preamble that said that the policy
>     encoded in the bill could not be introduced in the governments of
>     unfriendly parliaments,t he preamble would be ridiculed.  I have
>     the same view about software code which I consider to be part of
>     the rules that govern our lives, and while I don't ridicule people
>     for feeling proprietary about their contributions as that is not
>     yet the common culture, it is not something that I personally respect.
>
>     I am grateful for when I'm in the company of fellow long-time
>     FLOSS advocates who feel the same way, and who don't need to have
>     explained why the personal desires/politics/etc of an individual
>     software author should not be a consideration once software has
>     been released and is used publicly.
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     License-discuss mailing list
>     License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>     <mailto:License-discuss at lists.opensource.org>
>     http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200301/ee5b9752/attachment-0001.html>