Thanks Jeffry, One followup question: My understanding is that a contractor "must" have the option of doing non-client work. If that's true, if you found an SDK bug while working for a client, would you "stop the clock", fix the bug, then "start the clock" again? That way the fix would be owned by you. If the fix is owned by the client, the client may need to give permission for the fix to be contributed to Apache.
-Alex On 8/26/14 9:42 AM, "Jeffry Houser" <jef...@dot-com-it.com> wrote: > > I am not a lawyer, but that said.. > >On 8/26/2014 12:13 PM, Alex Harui wrote: >> My understanding is that when contractors work for a client, the client >> generally owns the code. > It depends on the contract, really. But, in my world it is very >uncommon for the client not to claim ownership of everything. [In fact >I often have to modify contract language to make it specific to work I >do for them]. > > My default contract has these clauses on ownership. It basically >says, "what is mine is mine; what is yours is yours". The second >aspect--cross-licenses says they can use/modify whatever is mine that I >add to the 'project' as part of the project. > >*6.OWNERSHIP* > >** > >If Client provides any of its intellectual property to DOTCOMIT in >connection with the development of the Work Assignment, such >intellectual property, together with all modifications to and >enhancements of, and all derivative works based upon, such works shall >remain the property of the Client (hereinafter referred to as the >³Client Proprietary Rights.²) > >Similarly, DOTCOMIT shall retain its title to the intellectual property, >software and tools used in the completion of the Work Assignment or in >connection with its development whether existing prior to the >commencement of this contract or developed during the course of its >performance, together with all modifications to and enhancements of, any >all derivatives based upon, such software and tools (hereinafter >referred to as ³Developer Proprietary Rights²). > >*7.CROSS LICENSES* > >** > >Effective upon completion and delivery of the Work Assignment from >DOTCOMIT to Client, DOTCOMIT grants to Client a perpetual, >non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use, perform and display the >Developer Proprietary Rights in connection with the use, display, >operation, maintenance and support of the Work Assignment in the manner >contemplated by the said Work Assignment. > >Effective upon completion and delivery of the Work Assignment from >DOTCOMIT to Client, Client grants to DOTCOMIT a perpetual, >non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use, reproduce, perform and >display the Work Assignment and Client Proprietary Rights solely and >exclusively for the use of DOTCOMIT in its marketing and promotional >efforts and to demonstrate its capabilities in the creation of such >works to potential customers or others without reservation or restriction. > > > > These clauses are often bones of contention and--depending on the >client--either get stripped out or heavily modified. > > >> So the question I have is: if you are a >> contractor and fix an SDK bug in the course of trying to get the >>client's >> app to run, who owns that fix? > It depends on the contract, but in most cases I would expect the >client 'owns' the fix. > >> Or do your contracts have ways of >> specifying what code the client gets to own or not. I would imagine >>some >> of you have an arsenal of libraries that you use in multiple projects. > I have never been able to build that arsenal of libraries because I >have never had a client contract which allowed me to re-use code for >other projects; and I never created it on my own. I've tried a few >times, but never got very far. > > Since I, generally, sell myself as a subject matter expert the bulk of >my clients are coming looking for help on their existing projects; so >they have massive code-bases already existing which I would modify. I >can understand why they wouldn't want to claim ownership. > > I know other contractors/consultants/companies who have had much >better luck with that than I in retaining code ownership. My impression >is that they are often providing semi-packaged solutions. I assume such >arrangements attract a different clientele. > > As an interesting note; at the most recent contract negotiation with >one of my bigger clients; their newly worded contract had very strict >restrictions on open source and code they didn't own. My interpretation >meant that doing any Flex dev for them--including maintaining the >existing apps they were hiring me to maintain--would be in immediate >violation of the terms. I spoke a little about this at a 360|Flex event >in the presentation "How to Fail Fantastically" [But the video seems to >have been taken down] > > > [Insert complaints about too much legalese on the dev list here] > >-- >Jeffry Houser >Technical Entrepreneur >http://www.jeffryhouser.com >203-379-0773 >
