It's a rather interesting article, but I'm gonna have to say that it won't be replacing HTTP anytime soon like some would like to think. Whether we like it or not, the Internet is based upon commodity protocols (some are getting quite old yes, but their usefulness is still rather high) that work rather well in their niches when you look at the limitations that are placed upon them.
The Net community as a whole isn't going to up and replace a tried and tested protocol with some new upstart just becuase the designers claim it is better. After all, haven't we seen this before with the marvelous new construct known as JAVA? And what was JAVA's fate, again?
Actually, Company X does have a small legal leg to stand on. When you, as Company Y, hire Company X to build your website you purchase a website. NOT the source code. The courts have continuously upheld that the source code belongs to the company that wrote it, in this case Company X, unless otherwise defined by contract. So when you write a piece of code (in this case HTML) for somebody else under a contract situation, unless you specifically sign over the rights to the source code you own it. Also, if the company that hired you did not pay Company X for their work, then you've got a whole different issue to contend with -- you're using "software" (i.e. the website they worked on) without purchasing it from them. Now, should Company X be suing you? Probably not. If they are truly interested in a lawsuit instead of a piss-fight, they should be suing the company that hired them then hired you. After all, where did you get the code from to begin with? Company X or the company that hired you to finish the website?
Slashdot Mirror
It's a rather interesting article, but I'm gonna have to say that it won't be replacing HTTP anytime soon like some would like to think. Whether we like it or not, the Internet is based upon commodity protocols (some are getting quite old yes, but their usefulness is still rather high) that work rather well in their niches when you look at the limitations that are placed upon them.
The Net community as a whole isn't going to up and replace a tried and tested protocol with some new upstart just becuase the designers claim it is better. After all, haven't we seen this before with the marvelous new construct known as JAVA? And what was JAVA's fate, again?
Actually, Company X does have a small legal leg to stand on. When you, as Company Y, hire Company X to build your website you purchase a website. NOT the source code. The courts have continuously upheld that the source code belongs to the company that wrote it, in this case Company X, unless otherwise defined by contract. So when you write a piece of code (in this case HTML) for somebody else under a contract situation, unless you specifically sign over the rights to the source code you own it. Also, if the company that hired you did not pay Company X for their work, then you've got a whole different issue to contend with -- you're using "software" (i.e. the website they worked on) without purchasing it from them. Now, should Company X be suing you? Probably not. If they are truly interested in a lawsuit instead of a piss-fight, they should be suing the company that hired them then hired you. After all, where did you get the code from to begin with? Company X or the company that hired you to finish the website?