21–30 of 272 posts
Could you like... Start a business with that?
it’s done well though, so could certainly build it up if this model is what you are looking for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What a terrible thing to do to a new, inexperienced coder.
I don't see any context where it's necessarily a new, inexperienced coder.
As an industry, we work so hard to build a culture of constructive critique via code reviews, of mentoring up new developers, of constantly improving our skills. We strive not to judge people for their code any more than we would want to be judged for our own.
Naming and shaming coders because they wrote bad code is just uncool, as it fights against the aspects of this work that make it enjoyable, and instead turns it toxic.
I find it odd that the license is MIT here. Since he ultimately wrote this gratis, that license means his client could easily return and use it gratis, whereas a license such as AGPLv3 would help ensure he'd actually get paid if this client decided it wanted to use it again.
> whereas a license such as AGPLv3 would help ensure he'd actually get paid if this client decided it wanted to use it again. a) So would any competitor to the client. b) The client can use the AGPLv3 version gratis too, even if they modify it, as it will be on their own server anyway.
The AGPL covers using code in servers. They would have to provide code for any server side changes.
I find it odd that the license is MIT here. Since he ultimately wrote this gratis, that license means his client could easily return and use it gratis, whereas a license such as AGPLv3 would help ensure he'd actually get paid if this client decided it wanted to use it again.
> whereas a license such as AGPLv3 would help ensure he'd actually get paid if this client decided it wanted to use it again. a) So would any competitor to the client. b) The client can use the AGPLv3 version gratis too, even if they modify it, as it will be on their own server anyway.
INAL but even if you did not get paid does not automatically means the result of work for hire belongs to you. If you are a contractor this is a smart thing to explicitly stipulate in the contract.
The copyright of a work belongs to its creator by default. (That's U.S. law; no contract is required to make that happen.) A standard contract for a contractor will stipulate that the copyright will be assigned to the client upon payment. If payment never occurs, the copyright stays with the work's creator.
INAL but even if you did not get paid does not automatically means the result of work for hire belongs to you. If you are a contractor this is a smart thing to explicitly stipulate in the contract.
The copyright of a work belongs to its creator by default. (That's U.S. law; no contract is required to make that happen.) A standard contract for a contractor will stipulate that the copyright will be assigned to the client upon payment. If payment never occurs, the copyright stays with the work's creator.
If it meets the criteria for a work-for-hire, the contracting party is the creator from the beginning for copyright law purposes (this is significant for reasons other than those under discussion; copyright transfers can reversed by the legal creator during a legally-specified window that occurs a few decades after the transfer, but a work-for-hire can't be recovered this way by the actual creator, since they aren't the legal creator), and owns the copyright unless specific contract terms specify otherwise.
Just screams unprofessionalism in my opinion.
INAL but even if you did not get paid does not automatically means the result of work for hire belongs to you. If you are a contractor this is a smart thing to explicitly stipulate in the contract.
To be a work for hire, a work must either be by an employee within the scope of their employment, or if by a contractor must meet three conditions:
1. it must be specially ordered or commissioned,
2. the written agreement with the contractor must explicitly say it will be a work for hire, and
3. it must fall into one of nine specific categories of works: (1) a contribution to a collective work, (2) a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, (3) a translation, (4) a supplementary work, (5) a compilation, (6) an instructional text, (7) a test, (8) answer material for a test, (9) an atlas.
Generally software fails on that third point. With software the copyright generally belongs to the contractor.
The employer can put something in the contract that requires the contractor to assign the copyright to the employer, but if the employer than breaks or cancels the contract the contractor has no need to do that.
Note: whether or not the person is an employee or contractor is determined by the common law of agency rather than by what the parties call their relationship.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> whereas a license such as AGPLv3 would help ensure he'd actually get paid if this client decided it wanted to use it again. a) So would any competitor to the client. b) The client can use the AGPLv3 version gratis too, even if they modify it, as it will be on their own server anyway.
> b) The client can use the AGPLv3 version gratis too, even if they modify it, as it will be on their own server anyway. The AGPL covers using code in servers. They would have to provide code for any server side changes.