mldonkey-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Mldonkey-users] Re: pango20021208a better than 2.01


From: Sven Hartge
Subject: [Mldonkey-users] Re: pango20021208a better than 2.01
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 20:49:51 +0100
User-agent: tin/1.5.14-20020926 ("Soil") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.20-112 (i586))

Sergio Bayarri Gausi <address@hidden> wrote:

>>>  Let me ask one question about the project.  In the ChangeLog is
>>>  noted from Simon, that you (Fabrice?) can't code because of
>>>  restrictions from your new employer.  Can you still manage the
>>>  project? Who is coding?  Is Simon on this list (I hope?)

>> I can't code, but I review most modifications.
 
> I'm curious about this, how can an employer restrict his workers'
> right to do their own code. I mean, why can't you code in your free
> time?

Most contracts boil down to "We own you!". So every line of code you
write, every thought you make and every word you say belongs to your
employer.

> Simon said something about intellectual property problems, but it's
> hard to understand: does that mean that a worker's brain belongs to
> his employer at full-time?

Right.

For example: You work for a company producing a program like Photoshop,
let's call it ImageWorks.  8 hours a day you code plugins, filters,
effects.

And then, at home, you go ahead and code a plugin for The Gimp.

Now the codebase for both things is your mind and your brain.

The Gimp is GPLd.

Someday, someone might be able to look at the code of  ImageWorks, and
guess what he finds out: The code for some plugins seems to be strangely
the same as it is found in The Gimp.

Wow.

Now think of all the hassle resulting from this, lawsuits filed, the FSF
being involved, etc.

So many employers only make contracts which allow coders to only code
for the employer and for nobody else.

> I don't want to start a flame-war on this subject, but I find this
> quite curious... If not stupid :)

Well, if you have to decide between job or no job, well, you take the
job.

> Take this example: Some guy works as a 'chef' in a restaurant, he
> cooks and cooks at work, eight hours a day. But he isn't allowed to
> cook the meal for his family and friends at home, because his boss
> ('le maître' :P) doesn't allow him to do so. Does this make any sense?
> Uh?

Meals are to be eaten, code is to be sold.

S°

-- 
BOFH excuse #257:

That would be because the software doesn't work.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]