FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-02-2012, 09:26 AM
Roger
 
Default was criminal use of linux -now: ownership

Er... nobody can take ownership over work that you have written,
Your work
is your own, regardless of whether they own the language you write
it in or
not.
Where is it stated that Micros[hi]t owns C++? when did this happen?
You
can't own something in the free domain? This is like saying that I
own
English and you can't use it unless I say so - it's stupid and
ridiculous.



Indeed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B C++ has nothing to do
with
Microsoft. Even in C#, which they developed and where they own key
components of the run-time, code you write belongs to you (though
licensing of compiled binaries can be interesting depending on your
compiler license - in exactly the same way some people call GPL
infectious).






Thanks Richard.

I did see something about Microsoft owning or making a claim on
ownership C++ in the avaaz@avaaz.org site who were
raising awareness of the group of corporate nasties trying* to
change US political thinking. They had something like 200,000
responses to that event, but I do not know the results.

*

http://www.avaaz.org/en/highlights.php
, a like group trying to get support for absolute web control. This
is the second such attempt I've seen. I gave support to the first.



If I can find it all again I'll post the url. I too thought it was
stupid and didn't take much notice when I read it but it made me
think, at the time, what if they own if, case, while and do, etc.
This is why I remembered the article.



Ad for ownership, I think it depends on circumstances. I have heard
instances of when one writes a work while employed by or under
contract to a company then they do not own their work, the company
does, even if the work was done on unpaid holidays or at home during
unpaid after hours.



If, say a programmer or developer is employed by a company or
organisation and they write code and say develop a site in their own
time, using open source applications, and contribute the whole thing
to Open source or under GPL, etc, can the company/organisation stake
a claim?



Also, if a programmer writes code snippets and contributes snippets
to a larger unit, for instance, a kernel or app. From the above
comment, he still owns the code snippet.

If a vast number of snippets from a vast number of coders are
donated free of encumbrance to enhance a kernel or app, how does
that make the whole (Linux) responsible for copyright violation when
no one entity owns it?



I'm probably waffling on here but it seems that there's more going
on under the carpet than we may be aware of with MS. Mentioning over
200 instances yet I see no one discussing or displaying code
comparisons to show that it is true. Surely it is incumbent on the
complaintant to provide proof.

Roger



--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
 
Old 08-02-2012, 11:04 AM
Ian Malone
 
Default was criminal use of linux -now: ownership

On 2 August 2012 10:26, Roger <arelem@bigpond.com> wrote:

Hi, you have completely destroyed the attributions here, making it
pretty hard to follow the conversation.

Richard Vickery wrote:
> Er... nobody can take ownership over work that you have written, Your work
> is your own, regardless of whether they own the language you write it in or
> not. Where is it stated that Micros[hi]t owns C++? when did this happen? You
> can't own something in the free domain? This is like saying that I own
> English and you can't use it unless I say so - it's stupid and ridiculous.
>

I replied:
> Indeed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B C++ has nothing to do with
> Microsoft. Even in C#, which they developed and where they own key
> components of the run-time, code you write belongs to you (though licensing
> of compiled binaries can be interesting depending on your compiler license -
> in exactly the same way some people call GPL infectious).
>

You replied:
>
> Thanks Richard.
<etc.>

>
> Ad for ownership, I think it depends on circumstances. I have heard
> instances of when one writes a work while employed by or under contract to a
> company then they do not own their work, the company does, even if the work
> was done on unpaid holidays or at home during unpaid after hours.
>

Commission work (which includes being employed to create code) belongs
to the person or organisation doing the commissioning. Companies
claiming ownership of work done outside working hours is pretty
controversial, but employees in that situation need to be careful
about not using work resources to do it which can muddy the situation.


> If a vast number of snippets from a vast number of coders are donated free
> of encumbrance to enhance a kernel or app, how does that make the whole
> (Linux) responsible for copyright violation when no one entity owns it?
>

The story in question has nothing to do with copyright, but rather
software patents.

> I'm probably waffling on here but it seems that there's more going on under
> the carpet than we may be aware of with MS. Mentioning over 200 instances
> yet I see no one discussing or displaying code comparisons to show that it
> is true. Surely it is incumbent on the complaintant to provide proof.

Code comparisons aren't very relevant to patent claims. MS are
essentially fishing. If there are patents infringed and MS said which
ones then they could be worked around or dropped as necessary.

--
imalone
http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
 
Old 08-02-2012, 01:43 PM
Dave Ihnat
 
Default was criminal use of linux -now: ownership

Once, long ago--actually, on Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 07:26:02PM +1000--Roger (arelem@bigpond.com) said:
> Er... nobody can take ownership over work that you have written,
> Your work is your own, regardless of whether they own the language
> you write it in or not.

True, unless:

1. You contractually grant it to another. It's quite common to either
take contracts or sign employment agreements that grant everything
you produce for a client or employer as a "work for hire".

2. It is also quite common to sign an agreement, usually as a clause in
the general contract or employment agreement, that you will cooperate
in the transfer of any patents awarded in the course of your work to
your contractor or employer.

> Where is it stated that Micros[hi]t owns C++? when did this happen?

Absolutely bogus. C++ was developed by Bjarne Stroustrup while at BTL.

> (though licensing of compiled binaries can be interesting depending
> on your compiler license - in exactly the same way some people call
> GPL infectious).

It's more common that linking in copyrighted binaries will contaminate your
code. This has not, however, been a common restriction since the GNU
library wars.

> Ad for ownership, I think it depends on circumstances. I have heard
> instances of when one writes a work while employed by or under
> contract to a company then they do not own their work, the company
> does, even if the work was done on unpaid holidays or at home during
> unpaid after hours.

This used to be a common restrictive clause in employment contracts.
I haven't seen such tried in a mort of years. HOWEVER, make sure not
to sign any such agreement, and don't ever use company resources or time
to do any development you want to keep. (And, of course, never use any
information you could only have gotten from your employer or contractee.)

> If, say a programmer or developer is employed by a company or
> organisation and they write code and say develop a site in their own
> time, using open source applications, and contribute the whole thing
> to Open source or under GPL, etc, can the company/organisation stake
> a claim?

Only if you signed an agreement stating such.

> Also, if a programmer writes code snippets and contributes snippets
> to a larger unit, for instance, a kernel or app. From the above
> comment, he still owns the code snippet.

You do, unless you release ownership.

> If a vast number of snippets from a vast number of coders are
> donated free of encumbrance to enhance a kernel or app, how does
> that make the whole (Linux) responsible for copyright violation when
> no one entity owns it?

None of the snippets that are unencumbered are in trouble, _unless_ they
violate a copyright.

> I'm probably waffling on here but it seems that there's more going
> on under the carpet than we may be aware of with MS. Mentioning over
> 200 instances yet I see no one discussing or displaying code
> comparisons to show that it is true. Surely it is incumbent on the
> complaintant to provide proof.

Not unless and until they actually take action. There's no advantage to
Microsoft in actually providing evidence of what they believe has been
infringed. If they do so, then developers can take steps to rewrite
and remove the offending code. If they don't, everything is suspect
of being tainted, and (they can hope) corporations are leery of using
potentially tainted code without indemnification.

Cheers,
--
Dave Ihnat
dihnat@dminet.com
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
 
Old 08-02-2012, 03:42 PM
Ed Greshko
 
Default was criminal use of linux -now: ownership

On 08/02/2012 07:04 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
> Hi, you have completely destroyed the attributions here, making it
> pretty hard to follow the conversation.

Which is good..... Since this is kind of useless on this mailing list.

--
Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning. -- Rick Cook, The Wizardry Compiled
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
 
Old 08-02-2012, 03:49 PM
Patrick Kobly
 
Default was criminal use of linux -now: ownership

IANAL, and I suspect you are not either. YMMV - employment law and intellectual property law differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

-----Original message-----
From: Dave Ihnat <dihnat@dminet.com>
Sent: Thu 02-08-2012 07:43
Subject: Re: was criminal use of linux [not] -now: ownership
To: Community support for Fedora users <users@lists.fedoraproject.org>;
> Once, long ago--actually, on Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 07:26:02PM +1000--Roger
> (arelem@bigpond.com) said:
> > Er... nobody can take ownership over work that you have written,
> > Your work is your own, regardless of whether they own the language
> > you write it in or not.
>
> True, unless:
>
> 1. You contractually grant it to another. It's quite common to either
> take contracts or sign employment agreements that grant everything
> you produce for a client or employer as a "work for hire".

In some jurisdictions, this is assumed to be the case (with respect to work conducted for the employer / client) unless your contract / employment agreement explicitly retains rights.


<SNIP>

> > Ad for ownership, I think it depends on circumstances. I have heard
> > instances of when one writes a work while employed by or under
> > contract to a company then they do not own their work, the company
> > does, even if the work was done on unpaid holidays or at home during
> > unpaid after hours.
>
> This used to be a common restrictive clause in employment contracts.
> I haven't seen such tried in a mort of years.

Because in some jurisdictions, these clauses were found to be unenforceable in employment agreements (as they pertained to work produced that was not for the employer).

> HOWEVER, make sure not
> to sign any such agreement, and don't ever use company resources or time
> to do any development you want to keep. (And, of course, never use any
> information you could only have gotten from your employer or contractee.)

Surely wise advice. Also sage advice - consult a lawyer if you have doubts about your rights.

> > If, say a programmer or developer is employed by a company or
> > organisation and they write code and say develop a site in their own
> > time, using open source applications, and contribute the whole thing
> > to Open source or under GPL, etc, can the company/organisation stake
> > a claim?
>
> Only if you signed an agreement stating such.

And even then, not necessarily so.

> > If a vast number of snippets from a vast number of coders are
> > donated free of encumbrance to enhance a kernel or app, how does
> > that make the whole (Linux) responsible for copyright violation when
> > no one entity owns it?
>
> None of the snippets that are unencumbered are in trouble, _unless_ they
> violate a copyright.

And if they do, it's generally the entity "distributing" the infringing material who bears the bulk of the liability. Which is why many projects (including the kernel) go to great lengths to establish attribution and do their due diligence to ensure that contributed code is not encumbered.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:22 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org