Re: What are a programmer's rights to what he writes?

Doug, I'd better reply to this one,

>>While I appreciate where you are coming from,...

Most people can appreciate the fact that although employees are just as
bright, highly-educated, skillful, trained, and potentially as creative as
their independent contractor counterparts - their rights under the law are
vastly inferior.  My proposal would make them equal.

>> I think it would be next to impossible to implement.

Its not "next to impossible" for independent contractors.  Neither is it for
employers and employees.  More practical examples follow.

>>As soon as you have a project team, who owns what parts?

The question is not "who owns the parts", the question is "who holds rights
to the expression within the parts."  An author holds rights to his
expression.  This is like asking who owns the poems within a collection of
poetry.  Individual authors may own the individual poems.  The publisher
will own the table of contents - and the book the poems are printed in.

>>If an experienced developer designs things which are assigned to
>>junior programmers who otherwise wouldn't have a clue, who has the
>>copyright?

You said yourself, in an earlier post, copyright does not apply to ideas.
Only expression.  The expression in the design is distinct from the
expression in the source module.  The resulting copyrights are also
distinct.

>>When your code won't run without service program routines
>>the company already had before you started, what are you going to do?

In software, the copyrights in a compiled object, or an entire application,
will be distinct from the copyrights in the source modules embodied therein.

Again, copyright has nothing to do with whether something will run or not,
it only deals with the author's expression of an idea.  In the poetry
example above, the individual poems may not have commercial value until
included in a collection.  But, they still can be shared with friends, and
derivative works can be made, and later you can include them in your own
collection.

>>Avoid calling anything you didn't write so your code will run complete
>>on its own?

Hopefully, my previous answers have cleared up the misconception that
copyrights are an all or nothing issue.  On the contrary, Ann Landers may
hold the copyright to her column, the newspaper may hold copyrights to the
paper (as a whole).  Also, copyrights can be shared - easily.  If the
question is about a guy refusing to use anyone else's stuff so he can simply
increase what he owns, then that design decision can be handled by the
constraints of the project.

>>Let's face it: there is a lot more maintenance of existing
>>applications then development of new stand-alone applications.  It is
>>totally impractical to say Billy Bob owns this subroutine, Sally Sue
>>owns this IF block, and Johnny owns the design of this DB.

The law has provisions for joint works.  But a practical solution to this
problem is a (n) percent rule.  If an author contributes (n) percent to the
module, he's a joint owner.

>>Attrition happens; especially in this industry.  When you start
>>modifying someone else's code, what do you suggest the new programmer
>>owns?

The (n) percent rule would apply here too.

>>And a flood of quibbling over who owns what unparalleled in even this
>>overly litigious society.

Under today's law, companies will sue an independent contractors for
copyrights by claiming he was an employee.  My proposal would eliminate the
distinction (for copyright purposes only) - and the basis of a suit.  More
relevant, and historically speaking, an imbalance of power gives rise to
conflict, where a balance reduces it.  My proposal would result in more of a
balance.

>>"I refuse to be transferred to that project.  I didn't write it."

You have a problem with empowering employees?  In the case of
insubordination, an employer can "let the employee go."

>>And the list goes on.  It would be a management nightmare.

We're not dealing with cave-men here.  Management can implement controls via
guidelines and procedures.  Employees are good about governing themselves if
they are placed in friendly framework.  You get a lot more from an
intelligent and motivated employee than somebody you "think" you must
control.

>>The laws don't have to change for you to negotiate rights.

I agree that employees should negotiate!  Lots of employees are timid about
requesting rights.  A change in the law would help them.




+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---