Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
> Unfortunately, many companies (including the one I work for) are
> pretty picky about claiming all that you do at work as their
> property.
I've been pretty picky myself (and lucky, to some extent) in that none
of the work I've ever done has been subject to proprietary license. Of
course the bespoke solutions I worked on (or managed) usually remained
unpublished outside the client's organisation ... but that's not quite
the same as "proprietary", something people like DooFy clearly fail to
understand. Software is neither proprietary nor Free unless it becomes
published, much like any other private thought. As a staunch advocate
of privacy, just as much as Freedom, I see no contradiction there. But
the most substantive point is that the results of my labour were sold,
not licensed, to the recipient. In fact they didn't even /pay/ for the
software, they just paid for my time. The bespoke part of the software
was free, and the supporting infrastructure was both free /and/ Free.
AFAIAC /that's/ the way it should be.
So why exactly do we need software licenses?
Beats me.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which
| the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf
| denounces him for the same act, as the destroyer of liberty.
| Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of
| the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails today
| among human creatures." ~ Abraham Lincoln
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.26.8-57.fc8
03:48:19 up 10 days, 7:46, 3 users, load average: 4.95, 6.47, 5.88
|
|
