Slashdot Mirror
State Trooper Fights For His Source Code
BarneyRabble writes to tell us that a Wisconsin State Trooper is fighting to maintain control of the source code for a program he wrote that helps officers write traffic tickets electronically. Praised by the state just 18 months ago, Trooper David Meredith is now suing the head of patrol claiming that the state is trying to illegally seize the source that he had developed on his own time. From the article: "Meredith, of Oconto Falls, defied an order from his bosses to relinquish the source code - the heart of the program - in October and instead deposited it with Dane County Circuit Judge David T. Flanagan, pending a ruling on who should control it. The case centers on how the software was developed. Department of Transportation attorney Mike Kernats said the State Patrol - a division of DOT - provided Meredith with a computer to write the software and gave him time off patrol duties so he could do the work. But Meredith said in court filings that he spent hundreds of hours off duty working on it, developing it almost entirely on his own time. He noted that he never signed a software licensing agreement."
What if the state claims that he was using their resources and knowledge about how ticket-system works?
Would that affect the case?
For once I find myself actually rooting for a cop! Next thing you know, Microsoft will be giving away Windows, and Wal-Mart will go bankrupt... Someone pinch me before I wake up.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
There's a donut joke in here somewhere...
"...The mice will see you now..."
Make sure you know who owns the code you write before you put it into use.
Gee, I wonder which side /. will take...
So the source code is his... plain and simple. This is why corporations usually make its employees sign an agreement giving the company all rights to source code developed for the company (and if they don't, it is usually just an oversight - it is not that they want the employees to own the code).
...encouraged him and offered to let him use their resources (time at work and a PC) he should of asked for some kind of agreement in writing that it was his.
My boss is very liberal about what we do in the IT department as long as things are running smoothly and we get long term projects done on time. But even here I am careful to keep anything I might potentially think of as mine at home and off company equipment.
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
Ok, so we've got a disgruntled programmer/cop and he's not getting credit for software the state uses for official business? Hopefully they never notice the Superman 3 code that he borrowed implemented with a deadman switch. Seriously...Don't they know not to mess with guys with guns and nerding skills?
It does not matter how trivial. If you're into something like this, aways write it down and have the other part sign it. Period. I've had more than my share on this kind of issues and even turn some jobs down because of this so, better safe than sorry.
Scientia est Potentia
If he made a robot designed to do his job, they'd be buying his idea.
*suspense
Otherwise private business will implement it and we won't be able to get out of our speeding tickets. In this case we want the government to own it, since we all know how screwed up the source code become.
I'm wondering if the fact that it may be a derivative work of Tracs could actually be a bigger issue. The article didn't make it clear whether he actually modified parts of Tracs or just wrote an interface to it.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
2) Accepting a work computer and other considerations has *got* to seriously jeopardize his claim. For heaven's sake, do *not* accept anything like that for work which you want to own, unless you get explicit acknowledgment that your employer sees it the same way.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
The state should have made him sign an agreement ensuring all code belonged to the state. They have some toe hold because he used inside information.
He should have had written permission to write the code on his own and plug it into the state's system for testing or use.
Both messed up, and I am not sure that there isn't some comeback on the origin of the source before he modified it. If license was on the basis of non-commercial use, he probably can't sell it.
On the bright side, with this kind of publicity, he probably will have no trouble finding a new job.
Government + IT + copyright/IP Law = messy business
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
The article says:
However, it goes on to state:
If he did indeed base his work off another piece of software (that was given to him on the condition that he not sell it commercially), then I don't think he really has a leg to stand on.
Of course a court will now have to decide what legal standing the officer had pertaining the source code. The absence of any type of proprietary rights agreement may lend a hand to the officer. On the contrary because he used office computers at times may swing the vote against him. A related matter is the legality of issuing electronic tickets in the first place. http://www.legalreader.com/archives/001188.html
Dont car if you work for a Corperation or a Municipality...
Do something good on your own time at home for your employer and your employer will do everything they can to steal it from you.
They assume they own you, not the reality that you are doing them a favor for pay when on duty.
Yes employees are doing the employer a FAVOR by exchanging their skills and time for money. Really bad Managers love to make their employees feel otherwise because they feel that intimidating the employees is a better motivator and it strokes their ego.
So this was a task he was given as part of his regular job.
/.'er thinks their employer is not entitled to rights for work done on work based projects outside of normal work hours then said /.'ers need to get a quick reality check.
That makes it pretty clear - the source code belongs to his employer.
The "hundreds of hours" spent working on it in his own time is a fancy way of saying he spent a lot of overtime working on the project in order to make it happen.
IF AND ONLY IF it was a task that was unrelated to his regular job (i.e. he had not been asked to write it at work) could it then be considered "his own" and not that of his employer.
If this decision were to go any other way then it would kill the ability of employers to claim unpaid overtime working on a project as work that they owned. This could have pretty far reaching consequenes (but is also a bit far fetched.)
If any
 :
They will likely argue "Work for Hire" status of the work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
After reading the article, it seems he didn't develop the software from scratch but instead modified an already existing package. So, in other words he is calling the Wisconsin police department thieves for not letting him steal someone else's work.
My twitter
The police force should have never accepted the program without accompanying source code, or (worst case) some sort of license.
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
In fact, in most cases if the work is any any way related to his work domain it's theirs even if they _didn't_ provide any resources, or at least they have a strong case to argue this.
He's wasting his time and the court's time, he can't win.
I'm obviously not a lawyer, but I doubt he'll win this. It doesn't sound like he had any problem with things when he was recognized for going beyond and above... I would think that would make it look like he recognized that the code belonged to the police. It certainly gives that impression.
Still, I feel kind of disgusting.... I'm siding with a cop.
It is pretty much always the case, the gov't will own the source on this one for many reasons.
1. Body of Employee Law
Since most employer/employee law leaves no room for interpreting "spare time" vs. "work time" other than how much money you have to lawyer-up he'll lose on this one because he'll run out of money defending his position.
2. Body of State/Fed Law
I know the Feds have a policy whereby they own the source on things written for them. It would not surprise me to hear this used as the "authority" whereby the code is taken.
What's sad is the guy has committed career suicide at this point and, if he hasn't already blown a bunch of money lawyering-up for the pricipal/principal(sp?) that this is his code.
Developers please note: This kind of theft of useful code/ideas is SOP in public service. If you have a great idea, develop it on your own time and find a completely unrelated avenue to promoting it. GPL is one way to go about this.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
I donut think this is a trivial matter and I donut think that there is a clear resolution of the issue. Perhaps the officer can release claims to the code in exchange for an employment contract to continue development of useful software for law enforcement focusing on interoperability and information sharing. The office sounds like a smart and resourceful fellow. That way everybody wins.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
In 2003, the state sent Meredith to Iowa to get trained on the Iowa Department of Transportation's Traffic and Criminal Software, or TraCS. Iowa gave Wisconsin the software for free on the condition that Wisconsin not develop the application for commercial purposes, said Kernats.
At the request of his superiors, Meredith tweaked the program so that it would work in Wisconsin and created a way to import driver information and criminal histories into it. The software that imports data saves time and prevents errors, said Jones, the union president
Dang, on the one hand he's praised for going beyond call of duty (great game too) and on the other he was assigned to the project by his bosses.
This Trooper isn't a programmer first, he's a cop, who does cop things like write speeding tickets (over 2k a year FTA).
He screwed up by doing what his bosses asked him to do without having paper in place to cover what would happen to his work.
They screwed up by asking a non-programmer (I sure he is a code wizard but he was hired to be cop first) to do something beyond their job description using personal skills and ultimately personal time.
Interesting enough, if I read it right, if the State gets control of the modified software, they won't be selling it for commercial gain, whereas it seems Mr Meredith is interested in making money off of his work, fair, but Iowa originally provided the software with a clause preventing that.
The rock, the vulture, and the chain
If it a derivitive of software from Iowa, and Iowa gave it on the condition of there not being a commercail product made from it, then the officer has not ground to do anything commercial with it anyone.
However, for who owns what he wrote, that state already praised him for going "beyond the call of duty"
If that's how they wanna describe it, then it is not theirs by their own admission.
Can't he just Open Source it? Especially if the derivitive of something that says no commercial?
So, he was asked to write the software for work, he was given a (work) computer to develop the software with, and he was told to do it on the clock. That sounds to me like developing this software was part of his job descripton. If my boss put me in the same situation, I'd say the software was goes to him, no question.
The fact that he did it off the clock hardly seems like his boss' fault.
If I had to pick based on that info, well, he'd need to turn over his code. Regardless you can be sure that neither party will make these mistakes again.
Lets start refering to The War Against Terror by it's initials. . .
Nobody has yet noted that the software was originally written by the state of Iowa, and given to Wisconsin with the proviso that they would not commercially market it?
If he'd written it from scratch, at home, and the state was suddenly saying 'Oh, yeah, that's ours now', I'd be behind the guy.
However, he's essentially trying to claim total control over a derivitave work that he only wrote part of.
It looks like the base program comes from Iowa, which gave the program to Wisconsin under the condition that it not be sold commercially. Thus, the trooper cannot sell this program anymore than Microsoft could sell Red Hat Linux without releasing the source code for free. The trooper quite possibly has copyrights to the changes he made, but if so he can only sell the changes he made to someone who already has Iowa's program.
A fair solution would be the officer gives the rights to his employer, and his employer gives him a nice bonus for overtime work ($10,000-$20,000, depending on the amount of time he spent and the quality of the changes he made). If I were him I'd try to settle out of court.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
WATCH OUT FOR PATENTS!
Consider this scenario...someone decides to work in a sweat-equity arrangement, whereby he creates a tangible and functional piece of software in exchange for future interest. He by default owns the copyright, since there are no work-for-hire issues (i.e. no compensation is involved). Despite ownership of the copyright, it's entirely conceivable that the code could be rendered useless if someone else patents any of ideas used in the software. (Whether they merit patenting is another issue entirely- we've seen what a mess software patents have become).
It's just another way you can get screwed if you're the one producing the code.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/university.html
I work for a university, and I have explicitly talked to both the senior programmer and to our boss about developing FOSS on my own time (Do it both in person and over email -- so you have a record of the conversation).
If you write computer code and want to make sure that your company/university does not try to take it from you, you need to have that conversation. Send an email today!
coding is life
In this case, it's "What cha gonna do when they code for you?"
I would think that if the state claims the software as its own, he would have a pretty good claim for overtime. All those hours working on the program for the state's benefit -- well, he should be compensated.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Unless they specifically asked him to work overtime, he can't bill them afterwards. You don't decide to work 50 (undocumented) extra hours per week, then declare that your employer owes you thousands.
If this guy spent any time at work on this thing, or had time off work to specifically work on the project - which he himself seems to be saying is true - then he's screwed. Whether he signed a specific licensing agreement or not, most contracts will state that any work done on company time belongs to the company. And even if that isn't specifically in his contract (why would it be, he's a cop) - I'd find it hard to believe that anyone could argue otherwise. And if they did, surely they can fire him at a minimum for not spending his paid time at work doing something useful for his employer.
Currently he has a piece of software that he admits, and his employer can presumably prove, was at least partially worked on during work hours and using their provided equipment. The fact he decided to do a load of work outside of hours is his fault, he should have got this cleared up before putting any of his own time into it. If he wanted to keep it completely his own project, he should have refused their equipment and worked on it 100% in his own time.
On top of all this, TFA seems to state that this is simply addons for another existing system provided from another state, so I can't see how he can argue any of this is his code to sell.
He is now in the whole "work for hire" category. If he has adequatly spepeated out the code he did at work, from the code that was done at home, he may be able to give them a partial load. But I'm assuming that the effort was less formal than that.
The source code agreement isnt needed in most cases, but is nice to have just so there is no legal way for the coder to hold back a resource file that was coded at home.
Storm
Wisconsin was only given access with the understanding that they do not develop it for a profit. He got his hands on it through Wisconsin. He can't make a dime off the software itself. Best he could do is claim unpaid overtime, but I am sure he is salaried and he choose to work on it, he wasn't made too. So probably nothing to stand on there. All in all just a big mess of people not understanding the huge mess of IP laws. Which most people don't. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if anyone truly understood everything. I know I don't.
- if it is the kind of work the employee is paid to perform,
- occurs substantially within work hours at the work place, and
- is performed, at least in part, to serve the employer.
Not all have conditions have to be met, 2/3 is enough. e.g. Miller v. CP Chemicals Inc., F.Supp. 1238 (D.S.C. 1992) IANAL but it looks like the cop doesn't own what he wrote. FWIW: repost fromI think your idea has a flaw in it!
Blar.
Maybe the state has a fair claim to the code that was developed on its time/resources, and the trooper has claim to all the rest of the code? If so, then it seems to me that anyone wanting to use the combined code can only do so in a way that's compatible with both parties' licensing.
BUT... If either party was the first to claim a license that affected derived works (GPL, for instance), than I think that might get stickier. For instance, if the first scrap of code was developed at the state, then (depending on the state, I suspect) the code is public domain. If the trooper then added to that code on his own time, and GPL'ed it, he introduced two issues: he didn't have the authority to GPL the code that was already in the public domain, but he DID successfully put the GPL n code that he introduced at home. So if he then added on to that GPL'ed code on state time, he was theoretically acting as a state employee who violated the GPL, since as a state employee (I'm guessing) he doesn't have the authority to release code under the GPL.
Messy stuff. I'm guessing the best resolution is an amicable one, for instance having the trooper dual-license his code. Otherwise we might in the end a piece of software built from fragments that were illicitly combined, and the overall package isn't licensable.
I said the same thing only higher. But the problem is that the state did not pay him fully for it. He did a bunch of work on the side. If the state undertook full funding of this project, it is possible that they would have said no. This guy did the majority of the risk.
But after taking out the garbage and thinking about it, he and the state may come to an agreement. One that might make sense is that he forms a company, supports the code for 1-2 years, AND gives up the code JUST to the state. In the mean time, he is free to take it and sell the app to other out of state entities. That allows the state to collect taxes on it. Win-Win for all.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
This is a unionized job. So there's a union contract in effect.
There's no intellectual property clause in that union contract. But there's an overtime clause, which provides for time and a half for overtime and includes the line "Implementation of alternative work patterns or any variation thereof shall be by mutual agreement between the Employer and the Union." That says "Employer and the Union", not "Employer and the Employee", as is standard in labor contracts. Any special deals on hours have to be done through the union. This prevents the employer from pressuring employees individually. Any special arrangements about working at home have to be cleared with the union, and, of course, that's paid time.
"Work for Hire" is a very explicit thing in a union job. The company does not own your life outside work.
Unions - the people who brought you the weekend.
Seriously, why don't they just cut a deal?
State gets source code access, as well as unlimited free licenses internally. And, since the state isn't allowed to sell the software, the cop could do that on his own time, retaining control over the ability to market and sell it.
This way, the state is protected and continues to get upgrades for *free* as well as having the chief developer on staff. Cop benefits by being able to make the money he wanted.
Why do problems always only have 2 outcomes: my way or the highway?
The case centers on how the software was developed. Department of Transportation attorney Mike Kernats said the State Patrol - a division of DOT - provided Meredith with a computer to write the software and gave him time off patrol duties so he could do the work.
So he did the work on the "company" computers and on "company" company time? Looks to me like DOT has a pretty decent claim on the output.
Also from TFA:
But Meredith said in court filings that he spent hundreds of hours off duty working on it, developing it almost entirely on his own time. He noted that he never signed a software licensing agreement.
Never, ever, ever work for free. If you don't know how you're going to be compensated or the other details, then don't start.
Never argue with a man carrying a water buffalo
I expect the GPL-supporters to take the cop's side. GPL supporters are big on copyright, since copyright is the only thing that gives them any leverage to ask a business to align with them politically in order to use the software they indulge themselves in the illusion of offering "freely". If not for copyright, such "freely" given software would be possible to use freely. The same is true in the case of the cop. So, actually, I see quite a bit of suspense: I don't expect the entire community to own up to that.
Some contracts permit private development of stuff and some states enforce the right to do that notwithstanding contractual agreements, but in both cases (contract and state law) where I've seen it, it usually only applies to things done (a) on your own time, (b) using your own facilities, and (c) not directly related to your employment. Otherwise, it risks being a conflict of interest.
I'm not a lawyer, but the common sense of this seems obvious: It's wise to get an admission/agreement in some form from your employer before engaging in any activity that like this. I've had employers who have said "go ahead" and one employer who said "no way, anything you do whatsoever we'll own". In the latter case, the employer who said no didn't end up owning the thing because I didn't end up doing it, of course.
Some people like having a work-supplied PC, but anyone doing this kind of thing should avoid such things. Any hint that the employer contributed to the development sounds like a red flag to me, and that's what it sounds like happened in this article. If you do have a work-supplied computer, using it only for work, and using your own computer for other things seems the wise way to go.
Personally, I think the issue of the "expertise" he acquired by being a cop is not or should not be an issue. We all have knowledge, and knowledge/facts are explicitly exempted from copyright ownership, so the state cannot claim to own it, nor that he improperly used it elsewhere. Absent patenting (which let's all hope doesn't get involved), the only issue that seems material to me here is the code itself and how it was developed.
This particular case sounds messy from the point of view of establishing any kind of precedent. It sounds like an issue of people's personal privacy/property, but if he used facilities supplied by work, that makes it mixed as to principle. I feel bad for the guy, but it sounds like he's made some mistakes.
If I were sorting this out, I'd suggest that the State has no case for taking his software (sounds like a fourth amendment violation) unless he's compounded his set of mistakes by deploying it on machines accessible to them (which would complicate things even more), nor does he probably have a right to market it without their permission if they contributed financially (through use of material facilities). By adopting this posture, both parties have a reason to compromise. Probably the state should pay him some fee or royalty to get past this, if there's a benefit to them to doing so. If an appropriate price point is struck, both will agree, and things will move ahead.
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
Is there some reason the software and the source code are "joined at the hip"? Or can he somehow argue them as seperate entities?
They don't _need_ the code for it to work I assume, only to make changes etc.
Hah! Told ya, we know more than just growing soy and corn!
unjust?
I would say that domain knowledge is irrelevant. The key to this case is that he MODIFIED an existing program that he only obtained access through because of a license that states he can't market it. And even if he wasn't aware of this it doesn't matter. Unless you believe that I can ignore the conditions of the GPL because I didn't know the terms of it, or that the code was GPL licensed for that matter.
The only thing that can be argued is if he can control the copyright of the code he wrote. But that will get him practically nothing.
Unfortunately, if he wrote the code FOR the police department ON their resources DURING time they let him take off of his duties...he doesn't own the code. That's going to suck because his department will now be able to sell/license that code to other places and make a small fortune (which he'll never see). However, there's a fun twist. Since he's clocked several hours on a project that he won't be allowed to own, the police department technically has to pay him for hours worked (including overtime pay, which is usually really good for cops). He might even be able to fight that he should be paid at a rate more appropriate to a programmer. If he really wants to dig deep, he can sue them, not only for back pay, but additionally for withholding pay for so long (it doesn't matter that they didn't know they were supposed to pay him). In theory, the resulting law suit could give him the leverage he needs to regain control of the source code or prevent them from being able to license it out (which means they wouldn't be able to make money off of his work)
- Nobody would know what RTFA meant if it didn't need to be said all the time
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
He developed an application that he then provided for use by his employer. He used company resources to develop it, and _chose_ to work unpaid overtime to develop it (what software person hasn't done that?). His chances of winning this are approximately 0.0%. Any other outcome would basically be ridiculous and would have a massive impact on every software or hardware employer out there. It would be untenable.
They may get some rights to the code (e.g. they can ask for part of the licensing fees or allow internal use only).
He isn't a programmer.
If your company boss says "hey, go and get on holiday. take a break", the holiday doesn't belong to them. Even booked at work. Because going on holiday isn't part of your job.
It is too bad that this gentlemen did not worry about ownership issues earlier, before he muddied the issue by using his employer's resources.
Getting away from the basic premise of this discussion, but for a large part of "traffic" laws, yes.
... the purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign, is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.
One of the best discussions presented on the subject of law is Frederick Bastiat's "The Law"
His book is presented primarily in the form of Natural Law, which is the fundemental principles our country was founded upon. One of my favorite statements from this book follows:
Depending on where you stand on the above, you can either believe the majority of traffic laws "prevent injustice" or not. Personally, I side against most of them.
And out come the trolls...
someone has seen into the heart of slashdot
I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
It isn't his job to program
It was mostly his own resources
It was to help his employer
If I was the police force, id try and negotiate a perpetual license to include the source on the understanding its not sold in competition. That way the cop makes money and secondly the police force have access to the source so they can maintain their application. That, and the cop can sell the other copies to other police forces without bad feeling. Its a win win
http://www.writeitfor.us - Writing IT for the IT generation.
In US you are right. In Denmark, you retain ownership of the end product, but your employer get a license to use the product for the purpose it was developed (including resale, if that was the purpose).
I have no idea about what the law says in Canada.
Of course, they might also abuse "eminent domain" for his code. I wish I were joking.
Did you miss that the his trooper's union is involved with this, too? It would seem to reason that if there is union representation there is also an agreement as to what constitutes duties as defined under the union agreement and agreed to by the state.
Assuming that such union agreement for state troopers in Wisconsin did not include them developing software as part of their normal duties, then the work he did is outside the scope of his work as a state trooper and is more closely related to a contractor.
Contractors retain copyright to their works all the time, that is nothing new (it's what keeps one state from selling their software to another). If the state did contract with him, as evidenced by they're providing him a computer, then it would seem that he has a leg to stand on.
Unless the union contract would dictate otherwise or there is some other documentation to the contrary, It would appear that Iowa has claims to part of the software and that the individual has claims to his modifications of it, on behalf of his client, the state of Wisconsin.
TFA stated that they obtained the source code from the state of Iowa under the agreement that they would not and could not commercialize the product. This should have been the end of the story but it seems this trooper is not playing with a full deck.
/. IMO.
Somehow, this brilliant trooper thinks that even after he was paid to customize the software for his org, if he put in more of his own time on this and submitted all that to his org, he owns the rights to all the changes. That's just dumb IMO. If anything, he should have only provided to his org what he completed on salary and then approached the owners of the product in Iowa to see if they would allow him to market his additional changes.
Sounds like what we'd hear/see on Judge Wapners "The People's Court" and not
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
If he was paid to develop the software, then he cannot lay claim to it. If he was not paid to develop the software, then he owns it.
The state is claiming that this was a work for hire. Unless they paid him specifically for doing this work, then he can not have been considered "hired." Being given unpaid time off can't count for payment either, ummm, since it was _unpaid_.
Doing the work on their equipment has absolutely nothing to do with anything under copyright law.
If an artist composes a song on your guitar that doesn't mean you own the song.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html
201. Ownership of copyright1
(a) Initial Ownership. -- Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are coowner of copyright in the work.
(b) Works Made for Hire. -- In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.
(c) Contributions to Collective Works. -- Copyright in each separate contribution to a collective work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole, and vests initially in the author of the contribution. In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any rights under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and distributing the contribution as part of that particular collective work, any revision of that collective work, and any later collective work in the same series.
(d) Transfer of Ownership. --
(1) The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.
(2) Any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any subdivision of any of the rights specified by section 106, may be transferred as provided by clause (1) and owned separately. The owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of that right, to all of the protection and remedies accorded to the copyright owner by this title.
(e) Involuntary Transfer. -- When an individual author's ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, has not previously been transferred voluntarily by that individual author, no action by any governmental body or other official or organization purporting to seize, expropriate, transfer, or exercise rights of ownership with respect to the copyright, or any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, shall be given effect under this title, except as provided under title 11.2
"This is not open to discussion... He's wasting his time and the court's time, he can't win."
Your sir, Are Most Obviously Not A Lawyer.
Did anyone else reading this headline think it was going to be about Robocop--"his own source code"?
.sig withheld by request
Are you a lawyer? Do you know all the ins and outs of Wisc law? Your argument is the same as my first one. But again, I think that there is room for a negotiation that is amenable to both the state and cop. It can be a win-win without any major issues.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The officer is wrong on one point: this is a matter for Federal law. (The very same issue is why Novell was able to move SCO vs. Novell from Utah court to Federal Court.)
Federal law controls on copyight matters, overiding both state law and whatever contract he was (forced to) sign. And Federal law says that the program is his, and not the State of Wisconsin's, unless either (a) it was produced during the normal course of his working day; or (b) it was specifically commissioned in writing; or else (c) there is a signed written specific instrument of conveyance (US Code Title 17, Chapter 1 Section 101 and Chapter 2 Section 204).
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
If the program was given in binary form to Wisconsin (and not source code or object code), then there's no way he could link his source code against Iowa's. If he couldn't link against Iowa's code, then perhaps he designed a GUI front-end for it.
Now, I saw nothing in the article stating what modifications he made. But, I ponder...if all he did was design a GUI front-end which does some preprocessing of some data files and then drops them in the right folder for Iowa's program to access later, then he didn't make any modifications to Iowa's program. Thus, legally, he has avoided violating the can't-sell-this clause of the license.
Seeing as how he's a cop and not a programmer, I'd venture to guess he may have used VB to make such a front-end.
:(){
The article is pretty vague about whether or not the code is a derived work of Iowa's TraCS, so let's assume it's not, since if it is, the case is extremely uninteresting.
In favor of the state:
It might be worth asking: how did the state obtain a copy of the program? If he admits there was no licensing agreement, then it sounds like he either developed it in-house, or he sold a copy of the binary to them. Or is he claiming he sold them a copy of the binary for $0 (a gift)?
That's ridiculous, and is in no way evidence that he did the work on his own time. A cop can write more tickets just by being an asshole. Time may be one variable in number of tickets, but attitude and contempt for the public can easily overcome that. Or, to put it more charitably, maybe he's a high-performing cop, very good at his job.
(BTW, the whole idea of whether or not writing code was within the scope of his duties is pretty alien to me, I guess because all my experience is with small companies. To me, anything an employer asks me to do is within the scope of my duties; the very idea of job descriptions (i.e. cop vs programmer) ever being the slightest bit relevant, is very weird to me. But I know it's a big world and different people have different types of employer relationships.)
The fact he had a state computer at home, is very bad for his case.
To tell the truth, though, I have a lot of sympathy for the guy. I suspect that what happened, is that he really was told to write the program in the line of duty, and he did so. Then, at some point, he got personally interested in the project, and gave of himself. Programming can be like that, and there have been numerous times that some problem that came up on the job, made me start thinking off the job. He probably did do some work (probably a lot) off the clock, because it's enjoyable. But how the hell do you separate the off-the-clock work from on-the-clock work, when it's the same kind of work? It's impossible. What's he going to do, turn in 42% of the source code? What a crappy situation. It's a shame he didn't do something totally unrelated to law enforcement, as his hobby. (Ah, but there's the rub: he wouldn't have expertise with the problem as a user. A cop knows what a cop needs.)
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I have some sympathy for the cop, but at the same time, for the same reasons that I like the GPL, I understand the State's desire to have the source. Who should benefit from commercial sale is another issue, but if I were the head of the State Police and officers were using this software, I would want to have the source so that it could be adapted to changing equipment and so that bugs could be fixed.
It is in fact well established in the civil engineering literature how to set speed limits so as to make the roads as safe as possible. However, it is also clear that speed limit setting is a matter of politics, not engineering.
I think it should be actionable for speed limits to be set this way (i.e., I think politicians should be liable in court for putting politics above engineering in matters of public safety. "Sovreign immunity" -- the doctrine that politicians have no legal responsibility for their actions -- is a vicious and pernicious doctrine.
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
>However, these people never seem to accept that if they
... you've *never* accidentally gone over the speed limit? Even for a few seconds? Then you are going way too slow, to prevent natural variations from taking you over it.
...".
>just didn't break the law they'd have no fines to worry
>about.
Dude, come on
Anyway, laws have developed over the years in an environment where absolute enforcement simply isn't possible. It was taken into account that you weren't going to have perfect, robotic enforcement. That now in some areas we are approaching the point where it *will* be possible is a huge paradigm shift. There's going to be trouble.
>You never hear any of them suggesting the government do a study or a trial
>to see if our speed limits could safely be higher.
Probably because they are smart enough to know that the probability of success for that is lower (for now, anyway) than for urging the government to simply be slightly less Orwellian. Joe on the street still hasn't made the paradigm shift - he's still thinking "oh, they won't nail me for 1 over
He was coding something that directly related to his current day job. They retain rights to it.
Now, if he was writing a game and they took that.... we would have a case.
Another problem with this tho: Governmental software is owned by the people anyway.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
As in "developing it almost entirely on his own time" or "he almost did everything right" or "he almost had a case here."
Horse-shoes and hand-grenades.
You are attempting to read sigs. Cancel or Allow?
I was about to Google the law in California, out of personal curiosity, as to the rules of ownership of a copyright for works produced under certain employment circumstances. I found a very good article on Ownership of Copyrights, but sorting out who is right was giving me a headache.
I suspect the officer doesn't have a legal leg to stand on--but answering that question is going to require a peek at his employment contract, the work that was done, the other compensation or tools provided: in short, it's going to require lawyers and courts and judges to sort it out. Which is, sadly, the primary reason why we have lawyers, courts and judges.
---------------
Actually, try it like this: (The American Way)
- Write a little bit
- Demo it to the boss
- "I'd like to provide it to the State, free of charge"
- "I plan on selling it to other police agencies for a fee"
- "If you don't agree, I'll sell it to other agencies for a fee. Then, when the State wants it, I'll sell you a license."
- Profit
---------------Good idea, except be sure that little bit you've written has been on your own time on your own hardware. That makes it difficult to argue that the source is anyone's but yours.
Now, when it comes to this 'free of charge' business, be sure you sell them a license for $0, or 100% off. Better yet, give them a printed voucher (a copy of which you'll retain) for one free license. Whatever you do, be sure they have a license like everyone else. Then there's no claim that they're anything other than your customer as far as this software is concerned.
If all my base are belong to you and I attempt to retrieve my base, does that mean I'm freebasing?
This issue comes up a lot in the area where I live (Westchester County, NY). You get two opposing viewpoints: safety vs. usability. From a political viewpoint, safety must always win. Even if it is only perceived. Thus we get lower and lower speed limits, stop signs and traffic lights at more and more intersections. The results are predictable: massive traffic jams, terrible traffic patterns, road rage, increasing accident rate. MORE ACCIDENTS?!? LOWER THE SPEED LIMITS IMMEDIATELY!! You want to see what happens when everyone drives 15 MPH? There are areas in Florida like that and you wouldn't want to live there.
There is no substitute for competent driving. Pass a single, very simple test and you can drive until you die of old age. No recurrent testing, no serious testing, no feedback. Add to this completely ridiculous enforcement priorities. The police are their own worst PR nightmare. I, like most drivers, have many stories but the point is that poor driving is frequently accepted by and thus partly the blame of the police. I am not just talking about speed. Going 20 MPH too fast on a straight freeway is NOT the same as going 20 MPH over the limit on a local road with kids everywhere, or jumping from lane to lane without signalling and cutting others off, or cutting across three lanes of traffic to make a turn. But what do the police concentrate on? Speed traps! (could revenue have anything to do with it?) Frankly, I am amazed there aren't more wrecks, and 99% of the time speeed has NOTHING to do with it.
Like it or not, speed is a scapegoat and the traps are really just a stealth tax.
Typically, at least every job I've had, if you develop something in the same industry at the same time you are working for a company in that industry, everything you do belongs to the company whether you do it on your own time or not. (unless you list it on your contract when you are hired, or you started working on it before you were hired) However, for unless the police are privatized there (and I mean really privatized legally not in practice) this doesn't apply for Public Service workers.
Storm Trooper Fights For His Source Code
In some senses, GPL'd software is free. You don't pay for it, and you can use it pretty much any way you want. You can even modify the source if you like, or give copies to other people. These things aren't generally allowed for typical proprietary copyrighted software. The GPL uses copyright to allow you to have more rights to use the software, provided you agree to the conditions it specifies. This is a huge improvement over commercial software, but not as open as some other licenses, such as the BSD license. So I think your comment is overly harsh, in that the software is free in many ways that most software isn't. It just isn't absolutely free in every sense of the word. Picking on it for that seems rather petty, especially since GPL supporters know quite well that the license isn't as free as some others, and don't try to pretend that it is. It's somewhat less free by design.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
It looks like the base program comes from Iowa, which gave the program to Wisconsin under the condition that it not be sold commercially
I'm so glad someone else actually read the article and noticed that too.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
what im saying is that i think a lot of government employees who are hobbyist hackers have a problem here, because what they are probably doing is writing a lot of interface code to hook up to ancient and/or weird databases that the government agencies use. it is pretty much impossible to do that 'on your own', because its pretty hard to buy an IBM mainframe or minicomputer and load it with the 15,000$ system your government agency is using so that you can develop the program. furthermore, if you want the thing to work at all, you are going to have to take it to work and test it.... which would mean you 'worked on it at work'.... what im saying here, from my experience, is that this would basically shut down a whole lot of potentially 'open source' government work unless the government people agree to make it open source in the first place. thats quite unlikely, a lot of government managers do not understand what 'open source' is, let along what programming is. (heck its porbably that way in companies too)
I'm a a full time local govt IT person in Texas. When I took my job, there was a clause in my job description agreement that enumerates the kind of things I'll be expected to do in my work, and it says at the end "...and Other Duties As Assigned". I had to sign it to get my job. Those "other duties" can include anything from driving an 8-passenger van full of my fellow employees to a trade show to mopping the floors after a water pipe leak near the computer room. Pretty much every other employee position in my local govt organization, from janitors, to cops, to firemen, to the director of finance all have had to agree to this very same "...and other duties as assigned..." clause. I'm sure Wisconsin also has something like this too.
BTW, here in my city in Texas, we are bound by a rule that states that if we develop any software (or write any music, or books/stories/papers, or anything else that would normally be a copyrighted work) while at work and "on the clock", since our salaries are paid by public tax dollars, then we have to release that software (or other otherwise copyrightable works) into the public domain. Therefore I am, by my bosses, prohibited from developing and custom software in-house. Instead we are forced to buy software already written by 3rd parties since the local govt org doesn't even want to touch the copyright issue with a ten foot pole. Back in the 1980's they did write a lot of cobol mainframe software in house and shared it with many other city govts, and after a few years the supportability of the code became a nightmare because of knowledgeabe people leaving for greener pastures, retiring, dying, etc and subsequent city administrators refusing to pay enough money to attract and retain qualified tech staff. Now we must live under the golden commandment of "Thou shalt only buy and use vendor-supported turnkey apps, or thou shall not run computer apps at all."
PS: It's funny and ironic as hell that the captcha I have to type in to post this as A/C is "repress", as in "repressive" LoL!
Storm Trooper Fights For His Source Code
Naw, if we were talking about Star Wars characters, then it would've read:
Storm Trooper Fights For His Force Code.
i worked for a school too. i could see the conversation now. 'i want to write a program to automate this drone bullshit you are making us do' 'what drone bullshit?' 'it will make this task about 100 times faster' 'i dont think thats possible' 'uhm yeah it is, heres a prototype' "lets not play on the computers. who gave you the admin password"? ===== result: i wrote a lot of stuff without anyone knowing. and they were so stupid, they didnt think to ask how i did it so much faster. they didnt care. they didnt even notice really.
Really, the trooper's probably got the source, and if he has a copyright mark in it, then it should be illegal to take it.
I didn't really say everything I said -Yogi Berra
a large number of them were written by some guy named donald who worked at NASA.
This guy did the majority of the risk
Absolutely, but it looks like he assumed that risk under a faulty set of assumptions, a near-total lack of awareness of the concept of "work for hire", and zero paperwork that would clarify and document everyone's expectations. As this guy has probably told others countless times in his career, "ignorance of the law is not an excuse."
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
So, basically, you submit to our leather-clad, arms wielding overlords then, Kent?
1. He's a cop.
2. FTA: He writes 2000 tickets a year, several times more than his fellow officers.
Fuck him.
Yeah, those "speeding cameras" can be really, really dangerous. I saw one doing 160Kph down the freeway the other day. Could have killed someone.....
(Just kidding...)
I'm in to sadism, bestiality and necrophilia. Am I flogging a dead horse?
FDISK.
"Sorry. No source for this software exists and as such, if you'd like to hire myCorp to engineer some software you can license based on our subject matter expertise, feel free to contact me at 1-888-eat-shit."
He should have known better than to use their hardware though. I turn down my employer's offer to pay part of my broadband bill so I can keep them out of my side projects.
Here are a few equations to ponder:
legal != moral
might != right
powerful != just
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
It may be that the entire procedure is a pro forma showing by WI that they are trying to abide by the IA license. If the judge rules that Meredith owns the copyright to the derivative work, and that the IA license has been satisfied, then Meredith may indeed be free to sell the improved program, with a wink-wink, nudge-nudge from WI, who isn't making a dime off it.
#include <shoulda_used_GPL.h%gt;
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
I wonder if they could have given the same (work) computer with the same (work) assignment to any patrol officer and received the same result? I could be wrong but Mr Meredith seems to me to be one of a class of employees whose primary job does not include programming new software. They singled him out for this assignment because of his personal interests, personal skills and recent training on the original software package. If the State has a habit of giving random programming assignments to police officers who also are responsible for patrol duties then I better get out of the business. If he had been transferred out of patrol into an IT department it might make sense, if there was specific paperwork outlining that this is above and beyond the duties of a normal patrolman and he would receive suitable compensation it might make sense. But to give programming tasks to random members of your organization regardless of what job they originally applied and were hired for? Maybe that creepy janitor is a cobol genius, I don't know, let's have him rework the database. It smacks of either genius or madness.
The rock, the vulture, and the chain
More often than not - that would be the length of the left turn lane, provided the intersection has one. Or so it seems from my observation. (Of course there are some instances where the traffic pattern may have a longer or shorter one, but on average it seems to be the rule of thumb.)
If you create something while working then it is yours unless it was created 'within the scope of your employment".
So what the judge will weigh is whether or not this specific program written by the employee was within his scope of employment.
For instance, if you are an IT guy and happen to paint an oil masterpiece at work on company time, then you still own it, because the painting was not within the scope of your employment.
Libertas in infinitum
I don't feel any sympathy for this guy at all. He should have learned the laws before he went off and did his own thing.
He wouldn't have ANY second thoughts about taking this code from ME if it was in his right.
Fuck him.
That's my opinion.
It has always been my understanding that "government work" of that nature is automatically public domain.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
He should have checked copyright law before he started. He is an employee of the state therefore it ist he state's property. A cop out to know this.
Remember back in the days of the Soviet Union when a programmer wrote the game Tetris? Do you know what happened? The Soviet Union seized the source code and full ownership. After the breakup of the Soviet Union the programmer got ownership back eventually.
GG US Government, your looking more like a Communist Soviet Clone everyday.
Personally I would have destroyed the source code and told my boss and the justice dept to suck it. Even with consequences in mind.
Support your local school shooter, give them your firearms.
Sure speed limits are political (politics root = state, or city) rather than engineering.
On engineering terms it would be fine for some roads in the middle of towns to be set at 100mph because many cars are engineered well enough to keep on those roads and turn off those roads under control going up to that speed.
But people aren't machines. Small children will run after their ball into the road, and 100mph cars and small children don't mix. So despite what the cars and roads are technically capable of, people aren't capable of reaching such engineering standards.
Speed limits out of town - well same issue - you as a healthy fit highly trained driver in your brand new Porsche might be able to do 150mph down a desert road but a little old guy in his old car might completely freak out if you drive at that speed right up to him. He might make a mistake because he is stressed by your high speed driving - pull in front of you, slam the brakes on, drive off the road etc. So a road accident might happen even though you are confident in your capacity.
Of course speed limits are about people, and not engineering. Speed limits are about making the road safe for the weakest and most vulnerable of legitimate road users, not about the strongest and most able. Machinery has surpassed our capacities a long time ago.
Traffic tickets are a form of stealing to begin with. They are trying to steal code from someone who wrote the code to make it easier for the state to steal from its citizens?
Lotus 1-2-3 was a spreadsheet (taken over by Excel) and Notes is a collaboration tool (e-mail, shared apps, etc.)
You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.
because he developed his work during normal business hours and at his workplace, they can say that the code belongs to them. I know that because it happen to me
The judge in the case David Flanagan wrote Java in a Nutshell for God's sake. How can he lose?
"Contrarily the lookaside buffer might not be the panacea... "
At least when I was at Uni (graduated '98) the matriculation process involved signing rights to any intellectual property created whilst at the Uni over to the Uni.
I don't fancy this guys chances of winning sole rights but in _patent_ cases that I've seen (mainly UK, some EU) fair compensation of the employee who's ideas are being appropriated is a demanded by the courts along with attribution as an inventor.
GPS is only accurate to within a few metres for position. It's MUCH more accurate for speed.
Here's the handheld I own:
http://gpsinformation.net/etrexlegend.htm
- Speed Accuracy specification 0.1 knot RMS steady state.
Here's an interpretation.
http://gpsinformation.net/main/gpsspeed.htm
"Velocity measured by a GPS is inherently 3 dimension, but consumer GPS receivers only report 2D (horizontal) speed on their readout. Garmin's specifications quote 0.1mph accuracy but due to signal degredation problems noted above, perhaps 0.5mph accuracy in typical automobile applications would be what you can count on."
That's very probably more accurate than your car's speedo.
So please check your facts before spreading such nonsense.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Walmart nevers seems to be as successfull in Canada as it is in the US. I've always wondered why that was. Maybe Canadians are just more easily pissed-off by creepy flourescent lighting, annoying greeters, and being treated like seven-year-olds. Maybe we just prefer stores whose employees don't bear the grim visage of death upon their countenances.
All I see are creepy greeters, stuff I don't want in sizes that are totally impractical, lines that are too long, and flourescent lighting that is tuned to the precise wavelength at which photons can interact destructively with the human soul (possibly 666nm, but that could just be an unfounded rumour).
Small children will run after their ball into the road, and 100mph cars and small children don't mix.
That's the whole problem: At 100 mph they mix all too well.
The copyright in a derivative work belongs with the creator of the derivative work as a whole, but only to the extent that it is original. You own the copyright on your changes and I own the copyright on my changes. The original code is still in the public domain. You cannot sue me since I don't have your changes in mine and I can't sue you because you don't have my changes in yours. If we merge our changes into a single derivative work, then we both own copyright in that derivative work. Creating a derivative work cannot be used to extend the copyright or to gain control over public domain works.
I said drive on the roads, not blow them up.
Strawman much?
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
contracts FOR POLICEMEN have a section on assignment of intellectual property developed on the job?
Tech Public Policy stuff
Kudos on the cute question. A varaint of a perhaps-overused joke here at Slashdot, but enough of a variation that it made me laugh for a moment.
The truth is that I'm extremely sensitive to the delicate balance between people qua individuals and people qua society (and its inherently imperfect implementational approximation, which is "government"). If anything, I'm on the side of those who think that Government is overstepping these days, and that's a risk.
But the fact that an individual or agency does wrong, even routinely, is not a free pass to judge every action of theirs as wrong nor every action of those who oppose or fear it as right. I come down strongly on the side of government unfairly intruding into one's home, so I would oppose them entering his house except on very extreme grounds of imminent public safety (and even then, it's a tricky area). I certainly think there are complex issues when your employer is a government or quasi-government (something capable of behaving like a government in terms of force and getting away with it). But as I mentioned before, this case has "some of each". I also think that people who want to claim independent development should develop independently. They should know when they're on their own time, they should know what is their own resources.
This case is not about what outcome we want for "the good guy" and "the bad guy" even if we could unambiguously and Rightly assign who was in each role. This case is about what the right answer is given the fact pattern. Evaluating it on the basis of "did the guy who I liked win?" isn't right in my book. I try to set my ethical compass on independent sources of guiding truth, not just on the magnetic personality of someone nearby...
Also, and importantly, this isn't just about what happened. It's about what might happen in the future. Any time you say "the little guy should have won because he's the little guy", you influence the behavior of the little guy by saying "he shouldn't prepare himself" because he's already in the right. Or else you influence him to take action unrelated to the cause--like to buy a gun or get a lawyer, rather than to change his behavior. My analysis is, in part, about saying that people who do this kind of thing should protect themselves better--the police officer who's losing did not adequately protect himself and should have expected at least a risk of this, given current law.
Now if you want to have a discussion about whether the current law should change, I'd be up for that sometime. But it's a different debate. I have a lot of theories about how I'd change IP law, but I be they're not how you'd change IP law. To have such a debate, it would have to be under a specific other theory we were either jointly advocating or at least jointly agreeing to hold constant for the duration of the discussion ... or else such discussion would probably just spin out of control.
The most important thing to understand when debating hypothetical worlds is that no matter how hypothesize the changed law, you still have to go back to the original case and say "does the guy involved know about the law and is he synchronizing to it, or are we having a debate about someone who doesn't follow law and just does things and whether he should always win anyway?" If you assume he doesn't know about the law, then you're really saying "Can you construct a law such that it is so good people don't even have to know it's there?" And in that case, that's a lot like "Do we really need laws anyway, or should we just have judges and common sense?" I'm not sure I'm optimistic about where that trend goes... So if the other possibility is, if we change the law and the person will have to know the law (especially given he's a cop--that's not a stretch), then why isn't the outcome the same in that Universe as in th
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
Seriously -- don't encourage this retarded behavior.
Do you want to live a world where everyone should get a license for everything, "just to make sure"?
Fight the urge to think that an employer screwing with someone like this is "normal".
That's what they want you to think. That's what their lawyers want you to think. That's what some judges and many law-makers want you to think.
It keeps you in line.
+++OK ATH
In a world where you didn't need licenses, what difference would it make who owned the rights to the trooper's software. Rights wouldn't buy you anything.
If rights matter, then it matters who owns them. If rights don't matter, then it doesn't. So why does my taking sides--or, rather, failing to take sides--in this issue bear at all on that controversy?
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer