Board index » delphi » Re: Update on Who Owns the code

Re: Update on Who Owns the code


2004-11-10 03:34:45 AM
delphi69
"Henrick Hellström [StreamSec]" writes:
Quote

"Subject to the terms and
conditions of this License, Borland grants to you, if
you are an individual, or, if you are an entity, one
(1) designated person in your organization ("Named
User") a personal, nonexclusive, nontransferable and
limited license to use the Product solely to create,
compile (including byte code compile), test and
deploy, in source or object code form, your own
application programs and other works ("Works")."

The relevant part is that the definition of "Works" includes the
process of "create", "compile", "test" and "deploy" as well as both
"in source or object code form" and "application programs and other
works". Clearly, "Works" means a lot more than just the finished
executable.
Sorry but you are misreading this terribly. It is not that complicated. The
key phrase is "use the Product" It is talking about who is allowed to *use
that particular copy of Delphi*. Only you are allowed to use your copy of
Delphi to produce "works". The purpose of this clause is to prevent two or
more developers from using one copy of Delphi - each developer needs to have
a separate license. It does not in any way govern what you subsequently do
with any of the works you produce.
As a contractor, everything I produce with my copy of Delphi is by
definition mine ("...your own application programs and other works" from the
quoted license text above). As such, I can now decide to to turn over
ownership of those works to whomever I want - that is the right of
ownership. Borland does not prevent me from, in any way whatsoever, nor do I
need their permission to, assign ownership or copyright of *my works* to
someone else.
--
Wayne Niddery - Logic Fundamentals, Inc. (www.logicfundamentals.com)
RADBooks: www.logicfundamentals.com/RADBooks.html
Working for yourself is great because you get to work half days, and
you can choose any twelve hours you want.
 
 

Re: Update on Who Owns the code

Wayne Niddery [TeamB] writes:
Quote
Sorry but you are misreading this terribly. It is not that complicated. The
key phrase is "use the Product" It is talking about who is allowed to *use
that particular copy of Delphi*. Only you are allowed to use your copy of
Delphi to produce "works". The purpose of this clause is to prevent two or
more developers from using one copy of Delphi - each developer needs to have
a separate license. It does not in any way govern what you subsequently do
with any of the works you produce.
Not in that paragraph, no, but in paragraph 3.3 Certain Restrictions the
license most certainly does govern what you might do with your works.
Quote
As a contractor, everything I produce with my copy of Delphi is by
definition mine ("...your own application programs and other works" from the
quoted license text above). As such, I can now decide to to turn over
ownership of those works to whomever I want - that is the right of
ownership. Borland does not prevent me from, in any way whatsoever, nor do I
need their permission to, assign ownership or copyright of *my works* to
someone else.
Well, I am not so sure about that, but I{*word*7}and would prefer to leave
that to the experts to decide. I am just saying that it doesn't require
a totally unrealistic reading of the license to find that it appears to
be a lot wiser to keep your copyright to yourself and only license the
works you produce.
--
Henrick Hellström
www.streamsec.com
 

Re: Update on Who Owns the code

Henrick Hellström [StreamSec] writes:
Quote
I am just saying that it doesn't require a totally unrealistic
reading of the license to find that it appears to be a lot wiser to
keep your copyright to yourself and only license the works you
produce.
It is totally unrealistic in practical life to do it this way.
What if I out-source a piece of work to someone remotely, pay the
person, then confront the investors/share holders:
"Hey you guys, we don't really own all this software of ours, but we are
kindly allowed to license it, at least for a while..."
--
Ingvar Nilsen
 

Re: Update on Who Owns the code

Ingvar Nilsen writes:
Quote
It is totally unrealistic in practical life to do it this way.
What if I out-source a piece of work to someone remotely, pay the
person, then confront the investors/share holders:

"Hey you guys, we don't really own all this software of ours, but we are
kindly allowed to license it, at least for a while..."
You would have been stupid if you ended up in such a situation. You have
at least two options:
1. Pay the darn money to Borland to get an additional license in your
name for the remote developer.
2. Make sure you get a license that suits your needs, such as an
perpetual exclusive transferable license with unrestricted
redistribution rights. That would in practice be (almost) equivalent to
you owning the copyright.
--
Henrick Hellström
www.streamsec.com
 

Re: Update on Who Owns the code

Henrick Hellström [StreamSec] writes:
Quote
You would have been stupid if you ended up in such a situation. You
have at least two options:
Yes, and the third is to listen to Wayne Niddery :-)
Quote
1. Pay the darn money to Borland to get an additional license in your
name for the remote developer.
I have a list of 25 to 30 Delphi specialists who I have never met, they
work from other parts of the world.
What you want me to do is to buy every plumber, electrician or carpenter
a new set of tools when they come to help me with my house <g>
Henrick, go and get some fresh air :-)
--
Ingvar Nilsen
 

Re: Update on Who Owns the code

"Bill N" wrote
Quote
2) The new wrinkle is that the client is saying that he doesn't
care if we own the code. it is his ideas that fueled the system.
It is true that the client provided me with what the system
should do and look like. He gave me an excel spreadsheet
and said that I should do the programming.
I find the bit about the excel spreadsheet intriguing. What's that about?
j.
 

Re: Update on Who Owns the code

"Ingvar Nilsen" wrote
Quote
If something here is wrong, please advice me.
If you're wrong then I am wrong also. In the meantime I will continue
labouring under this impression until someone successfully sues me :-)
j.
 

Re: Update on Who Owns the code

Quote
1. Company A hires developer B for writing some code with the copyright of
company A. In such case, company A must purchase a Delphi license for B.
Even if developer B already has a Delphi license? I find that somewhat
strange...?
best regards
Thomas
 

Re: Update on Who Owns the code

Henrick Hellström [StreamSec] writes:
Quote
>Henrick, go and get some fresh air :-)


As a matter of fact, that is exactly what I will do. I just had a
bunch of carpenters here who fixed the floor in one of the rooms, and
due to the chemicals they used I will probably get permanent brain
damage if I stay here any longer. :-)
LOL!!
Quote
BTW the carpenters brought their own tools. Those tools were not
intellectual property, so I assumed the vendor didn't sell them with
any license agreements I'd have to look at. <g>
Are you sure? <g>
Did you read the fine print? :)
--
Ingvar Nilsen
 

Re: Update on Who Owns the code

"Wayne Niddery [TeamB]" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
Quote
"Henrick Hellström [StreamSec]" writes:
>
>
>The relevant part is that the definition of "Works" includes the
>process of "create", "compile", "test" and "deploy" as well as both
>"in source or object code form" and "application programs and other
>works". Clearly, "Works" means a lot more than just the finished
>executable.

Sorry but you are misreading this terribly. It is not that complicated.
The
key phrase is "use the Product" It is talking about who is allowed to *use
that particular copy of Delphi*. Only you are allowed to use your copy of
Delphi to produce "works". The purpose of this clause is to prevent two or
more developers from using one copy of Delphi - each developer needs to
have
a separate license. It does not in any way govern what you subsequently do
with any of the works you produce.

I agree Wayne has the common sense approach and what is likely to stand up
in court as I don't see that Borland can tell you what to do with something
you own in its entirity but Henrick does have a valid point. I mean it does
say "the works" must bear valid copyright notice.
So the licence on the face of it excludes producing any code put into the
public domain.
Very odd wording.
John
 

Re: Update on Who Owns the code

John Flint writes:
Quote
I mean it does say "the works" must bear valid copyright
notice.
So the licence on the face of it excludes producing any code put into
the public domain.
Wording could always be improved of course, but I really cannot see how one
can get that meaning from the wording there. Even if this license *could*
force your to include copyright on your source code (which it doesn't and
cannot) it still would not preclude public domain distribution. Public
domain does not require that there be *no* copyright, only that the
copyright holder grant free distribution.
--
Wayne Niddery - Logic Fundamentals, Inc. (www.logicfundamentals.com)
RADBooks: www.logicfundamentals.com/RADBooks.html
In a tornado, even turkeys can fly. - unknown