Ok, I can't compare with the physical environments some people have described, but how about a little psychological tourture?
One of my first jobs was as a programmer for a tiny company (3 employees (including me), plus boss).
The employment contract basically said "Anything you think of, at any time while in our employ is ours," among other things. I thought that was weird, so I took it to a lawyer, and he said "Don't worry, none of this is enforceable." I think that's a bit strange that one should be such a control freak, but everyone seemed very nice, and the pay was better than the other prospects I had, so I took the job.
I worked there for a few months. Everything was great. Then one day I walked over to my colleague's office and found her crying. I asked what the matter was. Initially she didn't want to tell me, but eventually I found out that our boss had just called her. Hmm.
Another time, I went into the receptionist area, where the other programmer and the receptionist were talking. The phone rang, and both women JUMPED, one spilling coffee, the other RUNNING back to her office. When the other programmer was safely in her office, the receptionist picked up the phone. I guess one shouldn't be away from their desk.
Eventually they told me a few stories from their history there. There used to be another programmer. He was a single guy, raising a little girl by himself. He also had an obesity problem. Our office was on the 3rd floor, and his doctor told him that if he kept working there, his knees were going to give out, and he would be in no condition to take care of his daughter.
Distraught, he comes into work and asks is there is someway that he can work at home, or if they can work out some other arrangement. The boss says no, and asks him if he is going to quit. He tries to explain what the doctor told him, but the boss slammed the door in his face, and told him not to come back, and wouldn't even open the door so that the sobbing man could get his stuff.
"What the hell did I get myself into," I started thinking to myself.
There were other things, but I think this example will suffice. Things gradually got worse, and I planned my exit to another company that payed me less money, but extracted less sanity.
This is in response to Daniel Lyons' article "Linux's Hit Men" of 10.14.03.
It seems that Mr. Lyons is insinuating the the people who wrote the original code don't deserve to set the terms that the fruit of their labour will be used under.
He seems to think that it is alright for a commercial company to use code that they did not originate without respecting the license that it was offered under, just because the "$129 device has been a smash hit, selling 400,000 units in the first quarter of this year alone."
If someone had misappropriated code from Cisco and used it against the terms that Cisco had granted, I am certain there would be much furor among the business community (as there should be). I do not understand why the rules are different for the "happy software proles" (as Mr. Lyons refers to them), that choose to release their software under a different license.
Granted, Linksys probably did signifigant work, and I hope that the free markets reward them, but it is not as if they started from scratch. Unfortunately, Cisco is caught between the Free Software Foundation and one of its big suppliers. Who put Cisco into that situation?
The sad fact is that in this country, the most expedient way to settle anything is often to threaten legal action. The BSA routinely gets many people's attention by threatening to sue.
I would also like to point out that it is perfectly acceptable under the GPL to modify code and use it internally, as long as the device or program is not distributed (Thus not giving away one's "proprietary" advantage). As soon as a work that uses the GPL'ed code is distributed, users want to use that product to the fullest - to fit their needs, and the best way to do that is to have the source available, so that improvements may be made.
Even if one is a great proponent of proprietary software, surely it is not right to use other people's work without their permission. That would indeed be a pity, comrades.
Dear Editors,
This is in response to Daniel Lyons' article "Linux's Hit Men" of 10.14.03.
It seems that Mr. Lyons is insinuating the the people who wrote the original code don't deserve to set the terms that the fruit of their labour will be used under.
He seems to think that it is alright for a commercial company to use code that they did not originate without respecting the license that it was offered under, just because the "$129 device has been a smash hit, selling 400,000 units in the first quarter of this year alone."
If someone had misappropriated code from Cisco and used it against the terms that Cisco had granted, I am certain there would be much furor among the business community (as there should be). I do not understand why the rules are different for the "happy software proles" (as Mr. Lyons refers to them), that choose to release their software under a different license.
Granted, Linksys probably did signifigant work, and I hope that the free markets reward them, but it is not as if they started from scratch. Unfortunately, Cisco is caught between the Free Software Foundation and one of its big suppliers. Who put Cisco into that situation?
The sad fact is that in this country, the most expedient way to settle anything is often to threaten legal action. The BSA routinely gets many people's attention by threatening to sue.
I would also like to point out that it is perfectly acceptable under the GPL to modify code and use it internally, as long as the device or program is not distributed (Thus not giving away one's "proprietary" advantage). As soon as a work that uses the GPL'ed code is distributed, users want to use that product to the fullest - to fit their needs, and the best way to do that is to have the source available, so that improvements may be made.
Even if one is a great proponent of proprietary software, surely it is not right to use other people's work without their permission. That would indeed be a pity, comrades.
Slashdot Mirror
One of my first jobs was as a programmer for a tiny company (3 employees (including me), plus boss).
The employment contract basically said "Anything you think of, at any time while in our employ is ours," among other things. I thought that was weird, so I took it to a lawyer, and he said "Don't worry, none of this is enforceable." I think that's a bit strange that one should be such a control freak, but everyone seemed very nice, and the pay was better than the other prospects I had, so I took the job.
I worked there for a few months. Everything was great. Then one day I walked over to my colleague's office and found her crying. I asked what the matter was. Initially she didn't want to tell me, but eventually I found out that our boss had just called her. Hmm.
Another time, I went into the receptionist area, where the other programmer and the receptionist were talking. The phone rang, and both women JUMPED, one spilling coffee, the other RUNNING back to her office. When the other programmer was safely in her office, the receptionist picked up the phone. I guess one shouldn't be away from their desk.
Eventually they told me a few stories from their history there. There used to be another programmer. He was a single guy, raising a little girl by himself. He also had an obesity problem. Our office was on the 3rd floor, and his doctor told him that if he kept working there, his knees were going to give out, and he would be in no condition to take care of his daughter.
Distraught, he comes into work and asks is there is someway that he can work at home, or if they can work out some other arrangement. The boss says no, and asks him if he is going to quit. He tries to explain what the doctor told him, but the boss slammed the door in his face, and told him not to come back, and wouldn't even open the door so that the sobbing man could get his stuff.
"What the hell did I get myself into," I started thinking to myself.
There were other things, but I think this example will suffice. Things gradually got worse, and I planned my exit to another company that payed me less money, but extracted less sanity.
Dear Editors,
This is in response to Daniel Lyons' article "Linux's Hit Men" of 10.14.03.
It seems that Mr. Lyons is insinuating the the people who wrote the original code don't deserve to set the terms that the fruit of their labour will be used under.
He seems to think that it is alright for a commercial company to use code that they did not originate without respecting the license that it was offered under, just because the "$129 device has been a smash hit, selling 400,000 units in the first quarter of this year alone."
If someone had misappropriated code from Cisco and used it against the terms that Cisco had granted, I am certain there would be much furor among the business community (as there should be). I do not understand why the rules are different for the "happy software proles" (as Mr. Lyons refers to them), that choose to release their software under a different license.
Granted, Linksys probably did signifigant work, and I hope that the free markets reward them, but it is not as if they started from scratch. Unfortunately, Cisco is caught between the Free Software Foundation and one of its big suppliers. Who put Cisco into that situation?
The sad fact is that in this country, the most expedient way to settle anything is often to threaten legal action. The BSA routinely gets many people's attention by threatening to sue.
I would also like to point out that it is perfectly acceptable under the GPL to modify code and use it internally, as long as the device or program is not distributed (Thus not giving away one's "proprietary" advantage). As soon as a work that uses the GPL'ed code is distributed, users want to use that product to the fullest - to fit their needs, and the best way to do that is to have the source available, so that improvements may be made.
Even if one is a great proponent of proprietary software, surely it is not right to use other people's work without their permission. That would indeed be a pity, comrades.
Dear Editors, This is in response to Daniel Lyons' article "Linux's Hit Men" of 10.14.03. It seems that Mr. Lyons is insinuating the the people who wrote the original code don't deserve to set the terms that the fruit of their labour will be used under. He seems to think that it is alright for a commercial company to use code that they did not originate without respecting the license that it was offered under, just because the "$129 device has been a smash hit, selling 400,000 units in the first quarter of this year alone." If someone had misappropriated code from Cisco and used it against the terms that Cisco had granted, I am certain there would be much furor among the business community (as there should be). I do not understand why the rules are different for the "happy software proles" (as Mr. Lyons refers to them), that choose to release their software under a different license. Granted, Linksys probably did signifigant work, and I hope that the free markets reward them, but it is not as if they started from scratch. Unfortunately, Cisco is caught between the Free Software Foundation and one of its big suppliers. Who put Cisco into that situation? The sad fact is that in this country, the most expedient way to settle anything is often to threaten legal action. The BSA routinely gets many people's attention by threatening to sue. I would also like to point out that it is perfectly acceptable under the GPL to modify code and use it internally, as long as the device or program is not distributed (Thus not giving away one's "proprietary" advantage). As soon as a work that uses the GPL'ed code is distributed, users want to use that product to the fullest - to fit their needs, and the best way to do that is to have the source available, so that improvements may be made. Even if one is a great proponent of proprietary software, surely it is not right to use other people's work without their permission. That would indeed be a pity, comrades.