I'm depriving him of a possession? surely not, I'm just changing a few integers in a database somewhere.
I'm glad that you're the type of person who believes that these types of questions have nuances. So am I. Sometimes reducto ad absurdum can shed a little light on matters.
Not only did we invent and build it -- we paid for it. That doesn't entitle us to something?
Let's see, the Internet infrastructure that is sitting on U.S soil is clearly going to remain the property of its existing owners, no-one is going to steal the boxes. As for the e DNS system, this was arguably largely the vision of John Postel at the University of Southern California ISI (not overlooking the work of Zaw-Sing Su of SRI) In terms of "we paid for it" well, yes the U.S tax payer did fund Postel's seminal work; but at the end of the day, how much did he get paid for that work, not much and the work was clearly meant to be open and free for all.
It is not as if a physical asset or intellectual property is being stolen then. So what is at threat? The ability for the U.S to have single handed control over an international communication system - including the parts that it did not build
The British got to define the Prime Meridian based on their global empire. Subsequently this has defined GMT.
Indeed but there is a difference here - does the fact that the prime meridian runs though east London actually allow the British Government to exercise meaningful control over the other nations' clocks and ability to measure time? No. Does the fact that the standard kilogram sat in a French vault for a long time give the French government veto over other countries ability to weigh things, no.
One is 'control' over an arbitrary, mutually agreed international standard. The other is control over an an important operational system in use by all countries, and built by all countries.
Presumably if I remove all the money electronically from your bank account you would argue that this not theft on the grounds that while you may have potentially have spent that money, you hadn't yet and it wasn't certain that you ever would.
Well exactly, it's two weeks free support while they get their tech support lines running correctly. Or, alternatively, it's two weeks free support in return for a front page posting on Slashdot.
I'm slightly curious about the original poster's assertion that "I certainly hope this catches on." What does (s)he hope catches on; that distro companies offer free service while beta-ing their service? Seems an odd thing to wish for, since it's a one-time offer that's hardly going to set the world alight.
I started reading this thread as a skeptic, but you know what? You've made me change my mind, I think you do have an interesting point here.
Of course, we may have to wait for an employee to be taken to court to get the final answer.
I'm just trying to work out if a clause in an employment contract saying 'You may not distribute software developed internally outside of the company without express permission' would hold water or would be compatible with the GPL.
Posing questions like this is a nifty debating tactic on your part, but I've got a better idea.
Instead of challenging us to defend the conventional understanding, why don't you show us where the GPL compels a person to distribute the source to modified code which is only used internally?
Go-on, since you claim at this is what it implies, show us.
As I understand it, the GPL simply says in this context that
1. You can copy the program and modify the program and distribute the program as long as the source is also made available to the same people you distribute the program to.
At its most literal interpretation this would mean that if I work at Bigcorp and place a program on all the BigCorp desktops, I should also give BigCorp's employees access to the source.
You've just inadvertently agreed with the post you were intending to disagree with. LordNimon was making the insightful point that since Pharmboy's company is placing restrictions on what he does with the code, it is a mistake to think it is HIS code - or rather, it is a mistake to think that he owns the copyright.
Instead it sounds like the company believes it owns the copyright and is granting him a limited license to use it externally.
Similarly, when you buy a VHS tape with a movie on it, you own the physical media, but the copyright owner of the movie grants you a limited license with respect to what you can do with the film (and copying it isn't one of them).
Returning to the original question; I would say that it is a very very rare contract that doesn't specify the ownership of any work carried out on company premises during company time. Are you and your boss absolutely sure it isn't specified.
If it isn't then the company's HR department has been incompetent.
You need professional advice because you need to find out what the default state is in the jurisdiction that you work... that code has to belong to someone today, but who? I don;t know where you live and IANAL.
Depending on the answer to the question above you can get on and draft a contract. MySQL uses a 'shared copyright' idea for their contributors, something like that might work.
But if the copyright is yours, you have to start thinking about on what basis you want to license the work to your employers or whether you want to sell the copyright to them.
1. The World Service isn't funded from the license fee, it is funded directly from the Foreign Office.
2. Are you saying you would be happy to pay a radio tax? or are you saying that the BBC should cut off all its streaming services from overseas viewers?
Sorry, that sounds like a substantial misunderstanding of the biology. There is nothing to suggest that in mammals the rate of mutation is related to threat.
The mutation rate is relatively constant. It is the selection pressure which changes.
You makeit sound as if the human genome is somehow diversifying to meet the threat of a nasty disease. No. It is the existing diversity that will provide differential fitness when the disease hits.
I wouldn't call you stupid, but you're looking at the wrong problem.
If I remember correctly, the protocols he is working on isn't so much for people, it's for things. He was trying to come up with nice Internet-esque lightweight protocols that would be standardized and which could be used for communication between Earth and space probes, orbiters and landers etc.
Currently, as I understand it, a lot of space communications uses proprietary reinvent-the-wheel systems each time; he's trying to come up with something cheaper, simpler, faster.
I really have to agree. I'm right up there with the next guy when it comes to companies ensuring that their Web applications are multi-platform/multi-browser usable. But to be honest, I find the whining about FEMA's web-site screw-up pretty unpalatable give the scale of the disaster and the number of deaths.
The guys give you a phone number. The Web application arguably isn't there to make YOUR life easier, its there to make FEMA's scarce resources go further by reducing the amount of data entry they have to do.
Perhaps they screwed-up, perhaps they made a rational decision about the amount of testing required v the amount of data entry they were likely to require given n% of the disaster-hit population use Macs/Linux/Firefox.
I don't know. But frankly my greater antipathy is for the whiners, rather than the people who (no matter how incompetently) are trying to help the homeless, injured and dispossessed.
Yes, but the definition of something under international law is not the same as the definition of a word.
At it's simplest a refugee is simply someone who has fled their home and is seeking refuge. There is - or should be - no stigma in being called a refugee.
Wikipedia has a lengthy article on the Electric Universe Model, although there is a warning at the top that "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed."
It'll give you some background. I have to say that a cursory reading does suggest a level of kookdom.
The cat parasite in question is toxoplasmosis, and where I am (the UK) about 30% of the population are thought to be infected. Which is presumably excellent news for armed forces recruiters.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm depriving him of a possession? surely not, I'm just changing a few integers in a database somewhere.
I'm glad that you're the type of person who believes that these types of questions have nuances. So am I. Sometimes reducto ad absurdum can shed a little light on matters.
Not only did we invent and build it -- we paid for it. That doesn't entitle us to something?
Let's see, the Internet infrastructure that is sitting on U.S soil is clearly going to remain the property of its existing owners, no-one is going to steal the boxes. As for the e DNS system, this was arguably largely the vision of John Postel at the University of Southern California ISI (not overlooking the work of Zaw-Sing Su of SRI) In terms of "we paid for it" well, yes the U.S tax payer did fund Postel's seminal work; but at the end of the day, how much did he get paid for that work, not much and the work was clearly meant to be open and free for all.
It is not as if a physical asset or intellectual property is being stolen then. So what is at threat? The ability for the U.S to have single handed control over an international communication system - including the parts that it did not build
The British got to define the Prime Meridian based on their global empire. Subsequently this has defined GMT.
Indeed but there is a difference here - does the fact that the prime meridian runs though east London actually allow the British Government to exercise meaningful control over the other nations' clocks and ability to measure time? No. Does the fact that the standard kilogram sat in a French vault for a long time give the French government veto over other countries ability to weigh things, no.
One is 'control' over an arbitrary, mutually agreed international standard. The other is control over an an important operational system in use by all countries, and built by all countries.
Presumably if I remove all the money electronically from your bank account you would argue that this not theft on the grounds that while you may have potentially have spent that money, you hadn't yet and it wasn't certain that you ever would.
Well exactly, it's two weeks free support while they get their tech support lines running correctly. Or, alternatively, it's two weeks free support in return for a front page posting on Slashdot.
I'm slightly curious about the original poster's assertion that "I certainly hope this catches on." What does (s)he hope catches on; that distro companies offer free service while beta-ing their service? Seems an odd thing to wish for, since it's a one-time offer that's hardly going to set the world alight.
While we are being pedantic....
KiB=1024
kB=1000
K=Kelvin
k=kilo.
I started reading this thread as a skeptic, but you know what? You've made me change my mind, I think you do have an interesting point here.
Of course, we may have to wait for an employee to be taken to court to get the final answer.
I'm just trying to work out if a clause in an employment contract saying 'You may not distribute software developed internally outside of the company without express permission' would hold water or would be compatible with the GPL.
Posing questions like this is a nifty debating tactic on your part, but I've got a better idea.
Instead of challenging us to defend the conventional understanding, why don't you show us where the GPL compels a person to distribute the source to modified code which is only used internally?
Go-on, since you claim at this is what it implies, show us.
As I understand it, the GPL simply says in this context that
1. You can copy the program and modify the program and distribute the program as long as the source is also made available to the same people you distribute the program to.
At its most literal interpretation this would mean that if I work at Bigcorp and place a program on all the BigCorp desktops, I should also give BigCorp's employees access to the source.
Your turn. Why do you think this is wrong?
You've just inadvertently agreed with the post you were intending to disagree with. LordNimon was making the insightful point that since Pharmboy's company is placing restrictions on what he does with the code, it is a mistake to think it is HIS code - or rather, it is a mistake to think that he owns the copyright.
Instead it sounds like the company believes it owns the copyright and is granting him a limited license to use it externally.
Similarly, when you buy a VHS tape with a movie on it, you own the physical media, but the copyright owner of the movie grants you a limited license with respect to what you can do with the film (and copying it isn't one of them).
Returning to the original question; I would say that it is a very very rare contract that doesn't specify the ownership of any work carried out on company premises during company time. Are you and your boss absolutely sure it isn't specified.
If it isn't then the company's HR department has been incompetent.
You need professional advice because you need to find out what the default state is in the jurisdiction that you work... that code has to belong to someone today, but who? I don;t know where you live and IANAL.
Depending on the answer to the question above you can get on and draft a contract. MySQL uses a 'shared copyright' idea for their contributors, something like that might work.
But if the copyright is yours, you have to start thinking about on what basis you want to license the work to your employers or whether you want to sell the copyright to them.
You have greatly under-estimated the power of the word "likely".
You need to complain to your pocket manufacturer. Your pocket is clearly substandard and the margin on pockets is HUGE!
Just a quick note from a NeoOffice user to say many thanks for taking the time and trouble to produce such good software.
So you're saying that the BSD licenses aren't in the true nature of open source? You're saying that that the GPL is the only permissible license?
I think someone is confusing open source with free software.
Well, in the UK at least, that's because surgeons aren't doctors.
Apropos your final paragraph.
1. The World Service isn't funded from the license fee, it is funded directly from the Foreign Office.
2. Are you saying you would be happy to pay a radio tax? or are you saying that the BBC should cut off all its streaming services from overseas viewers?
Sorry, that sounds like a substantial misunderstanding of the biology. There is nothing to suggest that in mammals the rate of mutation is related to threat.
The mutation rate is relatively constant. It is the selection pressure which changes.
You makeit sound as if the human genome is somehow diversifying to meet the threat of a nasty disease. No. It is the existing diversity that will provide differential fitness when the disease hits.
I wouldn't call you stupid, but you're looking at the wrong problem.
If I remember correctly, the protocols he is working on isn't so much for people, it's for things. He was trying to come up with nice Internet-esque lightweight protocols that would be standardized and which could be used for communication between Earth and space probes, orbiters and landers etc.
Currently, as I understand it, a lot of space communications uses proprietary reinvent-the-wheel systems each time; he's trying to come up with something cheaper, simpler, faster.
Or the contractor said "we can get it up and running with 2 days it it is IE-only. Testing cross-browsers will take 4 days.
"Get it up quick" said FEMA.
Wrong call?
This is clearly speculation, however...
I really have to agree. I'm right up there with the next guy when it comes to companies ensuring that their Web applications are multi-platform/multi-browser usable. But to be honest, I find the whining about FEMA's web-site screw-up pretty unpalatable give the scale of the disaster and the number of deaths.
The guys give you a phone number. The Web application arguably isn't there to make YOUR life easier, its there to make FEMA's scarce resources go further by reducing the amount of data entry they have to do.
Perhaps they screwed-up, perhaps they made a rational decision about the amount of testing required v the amount of data entry they were likely to require given n% of the disaster-hit population use Macs/Linux/Firefox.
I don't know. But frankly my greater antipathy is for the whiners, rather than the people who (no matter how incompetently) are trying to help the homeless, injured and dispossessed.
Why are you assuming the "must" is a legal must?
You ask Has any public company anywhere ever been sued for "not maximizing the profit of its shareholders"?
You should ask: "Has the management of any public company anywhere ever been removed for "not maximizing the profit of its shareholders"?
Frequently.
Yes, but the definition of something under international law is not the same as the definition of a word.
At it's simplest a refugee is simply someone who has fled their home and is seeking refuge. There is - or should be - no stigma in being called a refugee.
From the article:
"Stars are an electrical plasma discharge phenomenon. Electrical energy produces heavy elements near the surface of all stars.".
So that's cleared up. Right?
Didn't check my links. The Wikipedia link is here.
Wikipedia has a lengthy article on the Electric Universe Model, although there is a warning at the top that "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed."
It'll give you some background. I have to say that a cursory reading does suggest a level of kookdom.
There is also a site put together by the László Körtvélyessy - the original proponent of the theory here: http://www.the-electric-universe.info/
Wrong. In the UK if the merchant users chip and PIN and the transaction is fraudulent, the cost is born by the card company, no the merchant.
The cat parasite in question is toxoplasmosis, and where I am (the UK) about 30% of the population are thought to be infected. Which is presumably excellent news for armed forces recruiters.