Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Open Source/Proprietary - An Issue of Two Codebases?

Posted by Cliff on from the stuff-to-discuss dept.

g00mba_b0y asks: "For the past year I and a small team of developers have been working on an open source targeted, general business application framework. I say targeted because we have not yet selected a licensing model and placed the code in the public domain (we are working on some specific functional targets). I recently demonstrated the framework to a potential client who liked what they saw, and wants to use the software for their flagship product. In addition, they want to hire me to further the development of the framework as well as participate in the development. The sticking point is the structure of the legal agreement. I'm really interested in two things: the experiences of developers who are doing something like this (how did you address the IP issues); and links to any information on this subject."

"We agree in principle that the framework related development that they will be funding should be available for open source licensing, while code related to their business should remain proprietary. The tough part is coming up with a legalese definition of where the boundary lies, and a means of addressing disagreements when they occur.

I've done my homework and found a ton of information on licensing strategies, motivations for OSS, etc., but nothing so far that addresses how companies, who are funding open source initiatives alongside commercial development efforts, draw the line between the two."

5 of 160 comments (clear)

  1. Mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Would this be anything like the difference between mozilla and netscape?

    Mozilla is open source, and is what Netscape is/was based on, however Netscape added additional features like AIM.

  2. Hired or not hired... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wouldn't it make sense to open source the code that has been developed BEFORE you've been employed by the company? At that point, you own the code.

    At the point where they hire you to write MORE code, it is legally theirs, as they paid for it.

    Wouldn't that be a reasonable solution to the problem? After all, as a mechanical engineer anything I develop while I work for a company they own. I don't see why software "engineers"... should be any different.

  3. Strange that no one has mentioned... by Frothy+Walrus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the BSD License.

  4. IANAL by sterno · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I Am Not A Lawyer... You need a lawyer. Hire one and ask him, not Slashdot.

    --
    This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
  5. Close it up by The+Bungi · · Score: 4, Insightful
    And laugh all the way to the bank. The very fact that you submitted this shows that you're thinking about it, but remember this: idealism does not a car payment make.

    Asking the people who read Slashdot about these things is like asking Martha Stewart about investment advice. What do you think you're going to hear? I doubt you'll get a lot of useful legal advice on how to handle licensing and negotiations. But you're sure to get advice on how to give away your work more efficiently.

    Close it up. Make a killing. That is also a freedom.

    (hope you read at -1)