I almost never do the same job over and over again. I really don't think we fall in the same category of use. Legally, yes we can go that route, but why. Our modules are really the only thing that I see we need to protect if we are protecting anything. The rest of the code is normally a one off and no where near as complex as the modules. Like Tony stated, his code gets better every day/year. I know mine does. Bottom line is we should not piss off a customer enough that they don't want to use us again and if that does happen just password your modules before you release your code if you are worried about it. JMO
Now GUI's are a whole different matter. Like Heather posted, I think she could take legal action if she wanted. That is not cool. I have also spent a lot of personal time designing GUI's and that is the one thing that I would really get upset over.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
--- In Crestron@..., Neil Dorin <neildorin@...> wrote:
So far precedent law leaves no grey area.
Unless you have the client signing a contract that explicitly states you are licensing code to them and out lines the terms of license, what Lincoln has already said applies. Any unlicensed code is presumed work for hire and owned solely by the client. You essentially give up all IP rights in such an arrangement. Lack of a contract or terms falls under work for hire.
I can't quote specific cases myself but my lawyers sure could when I looked I to this about 5 years ago.
I find it staggering that our industry is one of the few remaining software Industries that doesn't operate solely on licensing models. Even amateur mobile app developers use licensing contracts....
Sent from my iPhone
On 2013-08-10, at 8:18 AM, "Steve Kaudle" <skaudle@...> wrote:
Not sure I agree. . .in absence of a contract, I'd imagine it's one big grey
area save for the programmer's responsibility to turn over a working system
to the client. I'm not a lawyer, so I could be way off on that one.
That said, my point was that enforcing the 'licensed to run only on
designated systems' provision is difficult, largely because of the
difficulty in finding out whether or not an offense was ever committed.
From: Crestron@... [mailto:Crestron@...] On Behalf
Of Neil Dorin
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 10:02 PM
To: Crestron@...
Subject: Re: [Crestron] the handeling of code requests by clients
Unless you have a contract with the client wherein you've explicitly
licensed the code to them, they own it, period.
There's no grey area legally at the moment.
Sent from my iPhone
On 2013-08-09, at 6:55 PM, Steve Kaudle <skaudle@...
<mailto:skaudle%40gmail.com> > wrote:
The code belongs to whomever paid us to write it (assuming all invoices
are
paid in full).
My company retains full ownership & can recycle as desired in part or
whole.
They can use the code as they please on the system(s) it was sold to run
on.*
*Not sure there's a practical way to enforce this.
On Friday, August 9, 2013, Gregg M wrote:
**
How do you guys handles code requests by clients? We know from the
questions being asked and the specific requests being made that the
client
is asking for it for another dealer. I've heard both sides of the coin
"we
don't give out code" "the code belongs to the client", so I'm just
wondering how the group as a whole deals with situations like this
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
*
****
Check out the Files area for useful modules, documents, and drivers.
A contact list of Crestron dealers and programmers can be found in the
Database area.
*
****Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
