Slashdot Mirror
Protecting Your Code While Allowing Source Access?
foo_48120 asks: "My small development shop, myself and four employees, is taking on a fairly large job that will run a substantial part of the clients business. To protect themselves they want the source code to the project. Frankly I don't blame them. We bid aggressively to get them to underwrite our own efforts to build this code, which we plan to resell again and again. That is the basis for our company.
I have no problem with them holding the source but need to make it clear that we own the code and that they have a license to use it in their business. They may at their discretion hire others to modify the code, but would still be required to pay their maintenance contract and be prohibited from reselling it or using it to run an additional business. How do you provide open source without escrow, yet protect what we are documenting up front as out intellectual property rights in the ownership of this code?"
Of course third party developers may break things and we would not be responsible for that or for fixing it without further renumeration.
Ideally, if we make them happy then we will do all future upgrades and add on modules as well. I am not worried about that. I do want to know if anyone has experience in the writing of such a licensing agreement? Perhaps they could provide me with a sample copy of their text?
Let's leave aside for now the issue of totally open source vs. closed source. There are times when you want the product to be proprietary as we do, however I want them to feel comfortable using our code so that if a proverbial plane were to fly into our building and wipe us all out then they don't go down the tubes with us."
2)Is it a sin when I blow my load while I'm thinking about you?
Please let me know...I need to tell my priest. Thanks.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
did you?
g to the oatse
c to the izzex
In england, they eat the other side of the sub, but in soviet russia, the sub eats you!
Hey, you think babblefish could just do the ledalese writing for you? Or are they still lacking in the ability to translate from /. speak?
//TODO: signature
Call me old school, but I've always been from the school of thought that feels that the best job done is a job done by yourself.
I've been involved in dozens and dozens of group projects throughout my renowned education, and for each and every one have written every line of code myself. Occassionally I would give some thought to suggestions from others, but when it came down to it, I was responsible for typing every single semi-colon at the end of every line of code because:
1) I'm not a fast food restaurant. You'll get your software my way, or you won't get the damn thing.
2) I've never met someone who was more skilled at composing correct, easy-to-read code than myself. So why should I let anyone else alter my source?!
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
A while back, I naively applied for a job doing tech support for AOL. Turns out they were just looking for "Saves" people, who are the guys that take cancellation calls and beg and implore people to stay with AOL. I'm glad I didn't get the job. The tour they give of the place reinforces something that most people smart enough not to use AOL already know: AOL's customers are not the 30+ million people paying for access. AOL's customers are the advertisers that are told, "We have over thirty million captive people you can reach, whether through popups, banner ads, sales pitches on tech support calls, and email!" Lately this business model has bitten AOL and now Time Warner in the ass. Considering how many other sources there are for getting information, I think this will heavily dilute the value of the offered properties. There's not going to be enough value to entice any significant amount of people to either subscribe to AOL or pay the fee for the content. Also, most people who use AOL aren't using it because they can get exclusive content. They're using it because they see AOL as the internet. This isn't going to bump subscriber numbers significantly either up or down. I don't see a huge amount of risk for AOL/TW, but I don't see any real payoff either.
1) Pee in a cup.
2) ???
3) PROFITS!
But that is Trollerific!
You would be much better off making your project Free software. Why?
Well, for one thing, the model of selling a product doesn't work in the software development industry. Programmers are morally obligated to give the code to their users and allow their users to freely modify and redistribute the code.
BLAM! BLAM BLAM BLAM!
"...and another hippie freak goes down. Man, I get tired of this life, shootin' hippies and drownin' my sorrows in the bottom of a bottle of Jack. But, that's just the way it is... for Tracer Bulletz, Private Dick."
A user writes: "Why dont you suck it, you wretched little faggot. Don't act like you don't want to, just get on you knees and suck it like the whiney open source bitch you are."
Mods have no sense of humor today..
slashdot!=valid HTML
To have your beautiful cake to admire and to be able to eat it at the same time.