Slashdot Mirror
Code Copying Survey for Developers
Struan Robertson writes "With all the controversy surrounding SCO's allegations that its Unix code was copied into Linux, we're running a survey with ZD Net to gauge industry practice on code copying. Do you keep a code library? Do you take it from one employer to another? These are the questions we're asking. All answers will be anonymous. The results - with expert legal analysis - will be published free - we're not doing this to sell reports etc. If you're a developer and happy to help, see our
questions on SurveyMonkey.com."
I think the first person to write a loop should complain a lot!
...right here. And here, too.
And lots of other folks contribute too. Good times!
The Army reading list
Hell no, I like rewriting conversion and formatting routines. That's like a paid vacation!
This is one reason that software patents are just silly. At some point, virtually every technique will have been written, then software companies will indeed all become like SCO: A few developers and a fucking platoon of IP lawyers.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
...you can build on view source followed by a cut-and-paste. I beg, borrow, or steal from wherever I can and I expect you to do the same from me. I am open to learning new techniques, code structure, and excellent documentation from the code I read and steal. I have never taken a core money making idea and used it as the central core of my own money making idea, but everything else is fair game as far as I am concerned.
Its technically the same code, but I remove the the parts that are not used.
Besides, even if I didn't have the database. I will write a function to do something very close to the exact same way 90% of the time. Most of the developers I know have very reconizable styles. I can usually tell who on my team wrote what parts by the code alone.
Sorry for my spelling errors, I dont have time to spellcheck.
Besides, the parts of a code library that are most likely to be reusable are also most likely to be publically known algorithms (B-Tree, MD5 hash, etc.) and therefore published in some form already. It's probably wrong to take something that you were specifically paid to produce for one company along with you to another, so don't do it.
I never vote for anyone. I always vote against.
-- W.C. Fields
Is unreasonable. You are assuming I would reuse code but not saying if its in house or between companies. In my stats class this question would be deemed unethical and slanted. Thus, the results of the survey would be thrown out.
It asks
3. By law, who do you think owns the rights in a piece of software that you develop or in code that you write?
Me
My employer
The client who commissioned and is paying for the development
But never asks where I developed it, nor what legal documents exist to protect various parties.
Obviously, if I'm working on code under a work for hire agreement, it belongs to the guy with the cash. If not, It's copyright me. If it's OSS code that I need to improve for a client's benefit, of course it doesn't belong to either of us - it belongs to the original author.
Did I do it at home? Did I start it before or after getting involved with the company or client? Does the client mind freeing the source? Does it contain proprietary information?
This survey is worthless so far, except to publish articles.
Emmm. Just got this question in the survey:
6. Would you re-use blocks of code written elsewhere
a) ( ) Only if you were confident that nobody would find out
b) ( ) Whether it would be found out or not
Where is 'c) I won't'?
Alot of these questions are very badly written. First off, I'm wandering through it, and I'm wondering if this question is referring to code that I have written, or is it code that I've just found along the way. This "survey" really needed to be beta tested (even in an irc forum or something) before being posted to slashdot. Heck, the mods coulda helped out a little and looked at the survey first...
Unless you specifically sign an NDA or it's in your contract that you are not allowed to do this, I don't see what the problem is. Writing everything from scratch every time you go onto a new project at a new company when you have code snippets that could be used would be ridiculous - it would be a waste of time and money for your employer. On the other hand, taking work that was done by you (and probably other programmers) and using it at another employer is certainly underhanded, especially if you've signed an NDA stating that you will not do it. If you haven't signed an NDA, check your contract. If nothing about code is mentioned, you are probably safe. Even a lot of "intellectual property" paragraphs can be invalid - people falsely assume that if the y have "intellectual property" protection, they are safe. Actually, the terms have to be very verbose and descriptive, incorporating either copyright rules or patent rules. A lot of NDA contracts that I've seen from prospective employees from their former companies (in the gaming arena, where NDAs are almost universal) were invalid!
... I make sure that I write in a different programming language every time I change jobs.
Sriously though, the problem with coding, is that it is still more of an art than a science, and therefore the endproduct tends to reflect the style of the developers. It creates legal issues, but it's like asking Da Vinci to paint in a different style for a patron, "because we don't want those Sistine fellas complaining on infringement of copyright"- Ridiculous yes, but very real (IMHO).
Why would I keep a library of code to help me get the job done faster and for less money?
This question:
3. By law, who do you think owns the rights in a piece of software that you develop or in code that you write?
Me
My employer
The client who commissioned and is paying for the development
Is missing: Me AND My employer - as I share the ownership 50/50 due to our inhouse rules.
I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them. Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)
Patenting or copyrighting an individual block of code is like patenting or copyrighting the color red. A painter would never be able to patent or copyright the color red and demand a royalty for all artists who use red. Painters copyright their entire image -- even a large enough sub section is copyrightable.
Coding should be the same. How many ways can somebody write a decimal to currency string formatting routine? How many ways can somebody write an RGP go greyscale conversion routine?
note: for those who say "what about Pantone?". Pantone does not copyright the color itself only the name and the Pantone color number is copyrightable. You are always free to use any RGB combination you want but Pantone will guarantee that their color system will always generate the same color on any printer that supports Pantone -- this is the value of Pantone.
In college in one class they taught you how to do this well. The thought was that if someone else wrote it well then use that instead of rewriting your own. There was a project where you had to do the whole thing from "borrowed" code.
Evolution or ID?
If I write a program that performs a particular function, and then later want to write a program to do the same thing, I end up producing an almost exact replica of what I coded previously. Maybe it's just me, but my coding style is basically set in stone.
So, in that key, I'm not physically keeping a code library, but I am reproducing code that may have become the property of another party.
...unless you really know what you're in for, and are ready to talk about reforming our laws.
Our intellectual property laws, when interpreted strictly, are a bit of a farce. Especially when it comes to thinks like patents, work for hire, the nebulous concept of derived works, "clean rooms..." all the way down to the embattled idea of fair use, backups, lending versus copying, onerous and unenforcable NDAs and employment contracts, and the end fact that, as a society, we have never ever, even for a day, played by the basic copyright rules "100%."
Our whole industry functions by ignoring the rules most of the time. I have never worked anyplace where all the rules (licenses, for instance) were followed. I always follow them myself to the best of my abilities - but it's impossible. I've probably unintentionally violated a license by now, and I've almost certainly infringed thousands of patents. I have never brought code from one client to another without permission or license, not even once, not even when it would have saved untold time and money and was simply the most obvious, easy thing to do... but over the years I received quite a bit of pressure under various circumstances to do it, and I'm certain that quite a few other people do.
That said, because the SCO issue (or non-issue, to be frank) is raised, let me say that it's a different thought process when you're going between the commercial and the free software world - both because the pressures to cheat don't exist (or hardly to any similar extent) in OSS, and because it is almost certain in OSS you'll be caught out. It's like parking a stolen car on the street in front of your house.
But commercial project to commercial project, yes, I bet it happens quite often. And also from OSS to commercial - I would be shocked if there were many large commercial projects that don't have stolen OSS code in them...
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
...not to document your own code?
Sorry, but a hack != programmer. You can toss together a bunch of stuff other people have written, but when it breaks you'll need to be able to fix it. If you never learn how to do that, you'll never be more than a cut-and-paste drone.
It's great to be able to use resources like View Source to learn new stuff, see new techniques, even find quick examples of how something's done. But if you can't understand how to do it on your own (which may take much longer, granted) then you're not going to last.
It's written by someone who either doesn't understand the issues involved, or is interested in 'interesting news' not a legitimate survey.
Most questions don't take into account the varying ways that code gets licensed and work gets done. They assume you're either giving the code to your employer or stealing it, when there is a whole universe of licensing paths in between those two nodes.
I completely agree with you that the parts of a code library that are most likely to be reusable are known and published algorithms. That and other trivial things is pretty much all I have in my code library.
Then you went and drew two conclusions that were completely different from the ones I drew out of the same facts we both agree with.
First you say "code libraries aren't that helpful" in the title. No, they won't be a significant portion of the code you right for the new company, but they're helpful enough in preventing you from reinventing the wheel every single time. Do I really want to rewrite everything I use again and again everytime I need it? Heck, I find them very helpful in preventing me from doing that.
Second, you say "it's probably wrong to take something you were specifically paid to produce for one company along with you to another, so don't do it." It's not that black and white, and it really depends on what exactly is in that code library (ethically at least. IANAL so I couldn't tell you legally). Without question, only code you wrote yourself is ethical for you to take with you. Other than that, in my opinion anything not directly related to the project you were working on is fair game. How likely is it that you're not going to be using certain primitives in your new job? How likely is it that if you write it again from scratch it will be different? You're just saving time, not giving away company secrets (which would be unethical)
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
You never ask whether the person wrote the code in their code library on their own time. It seems like you assume that it is all written on someone's dime and then reused in someone else's project.
It does. Stupid questions of the type "have you stopped drinking whiskey in the morning?". I got really aggravated after answering 5 questions.
I have a "code library" (whatever they mean by that) which I wrote in my spare time. It is released under GPL. I'm the copyright holder. I can assign any other license to that code. Therefore I can embed parts of this library in any proprietary code I write for my employer.
I also reuse other people's code released under BSD, MPL etc. This is all legal, but the survey doesn't know about this stuff.
I passed the Turing test.
I maintain at home a library of code under an open source (BSD style) license. Once an employer has given me permission to use and contribute back into that library, THEN I use it at work, and I take it with me when I go. If they want to pay me to reinvent the wheel, its on their dime, no problem! If they want the advantages my existing code, then they have to let me keep improvements. Sort of an informal LGPL license, without the "lesser" wording that smacks of posturing.
To the point - This survey did not allow me to clarify that my code library brought between jobs was legal, and it bugs me that it may be used to support the position that more people ignore the law than may actually do so.
--------
Create a WAP server
I'd think pretty long and hard before answering these questions. This group appears to be a MS astroturf (false grassroots) organization, going as far as quoting that shill Didio from the Yankee Group.
The survey is full of misleading questions and will *force* you to admit you steal. Watch out.
I really want to haul the same old bloated and broken code that I wrote 5 years ago from job to job, like an albatross around my neck. That would really make me happy.
The biggest tempatation in looking for new jobs is being able to forget the current code base forever, and never have to add YET ANOTHER feature onto already-baroque code that nobody wants to take the time to rewrite.
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
I think the parent comment is a lot more accurate than you might first think, for people with both good AND bad memories. My memory sucks - as is true of all good C++ coders - wrap and forget. :> I often search for instances of variables with names I can't remember using the name that seems most reasonable, and I'm constantly surprised by my success.
Then again, now that I think about it, maybe I'm just the type that's constantly surprised, period. Ha!
I fully admit to using knowledge from previous employers (be it a script, program, or documentation) to recreate something for someone else. That being said, I keep the direct cut and paste to a minimum and stay quiet about the whole thing.
On the other hand, every US government employee is happy to announce that they share things explicitly all over to other parts, devisions, or branches. In their own mind, once it's labeled as government property, it's free to give away. Now this sounds pretty reasonable at first, until you consider the consultant who is paid to do a small project for a single branch. Once finished, they can now go and try to make some money doing the same thing for the other branches, and even reference the other branch that they did this for. At which point, the client picks up the phone, calls the reference, and has a copy of everything you've done sent to them. They see that they have everything they need, and tell you to have a nice day, since it's their property.
Before we start running around on a big witch hunt, let's have the US Government take a look at their own practices.
6. Would you re-use blocks of code written elsewhere
Only if you were confident that nobody would find out
Whether it would be found out or not
So where is the 'only if it were legal' option ?
Part of this is that the transistor is a physical thing, not easily made without a large investment in equipment. If I am a little guy, I just buy transistors and I am free and clear. If I am a big enough guy to make my own transistors, I pay whatever tribute money to the transistor patent holder to set up my transistor fabrication plant.
You could say that a compiler, while not a physical thing is not an easy to make thing, so if compilers were patented, I would just pay the license holder for the use of compiler just as I do now. But a linked list is not a tangible thing -- I don't buy a supply of linked lists to incorporate into customer products. A linked list simply comes into being when I order instructions in a special way.
The hardware store sells an apple picker that is a basket with prongs on the end of a stick. I suppose that device is patented -- if I want to build my own stick with a basket on the end, I suppose I could and just not tell anyone about it, or I could buy the patented gadget from the hardware store and pick without recrimination.
Suppose the patent wasn't for "basket with prongs on end of stick that proves useful for harvesting fruit" but on the "process of removing apples from high branches by using a mechanical device to make contact with the apples" and someone went around sending cease and desist orders to people picking fruit.
Or how about if someone discovered that digging holes in your lawn on a three foot grid prevented weeds. I wouldn't have any problem with someone patenting a "lawn rejuvenator device" for sale at the hardware store, but suppose I heard of this idea and started digging those holes with an ordinary shovel (which I had already paid for) and someone sent me a letter that I couldn't do that without paying a fee?
I say that there is a difference in kind between hardware and software patents and that software patents stink.