Re: Code rights for employees (was Re: SCO identifies code?)

2003-08-21 Thread Stephen Patterson
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 06:50:08 +0200, Paul Johnson wrote: > Americans tend to forget that there's a difference between letter and > spirit. You're deliberately defeating the spirit of the rule, which > is don't send to the list and the person you're replying to unless the > person you're replying to

Re: Code rights for employees (was Re: SCO identifies code?)

2003-08-20 Thread Paul Johnson
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 07:21:47PM -0500, Michael D Schleif wrote: > So, actually, the message is addressed to you, Steve, and the carbon > copy was sent to the mailing list, which is not prohibited by that > particular code of conduct -- if one wants

Re: Code rights for employees (was Re: SCO identifies code?)

2003-08-20 Thread Nathan E Norman
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 07:21:47PM -0500, Michael D Schleif wrote: > if one wants to pick the nits that are actually buzzing around ones > head ;> Nits don't buzz around your head as they are eggs. (sorry :-) -- Nathan Norman - Incanus Networking mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For the next hour, WE

Re: Code rights for employees (was Re: SCO identifies code?)

2003-08-19 Thread Michael D Schleif
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003:08:19:15:31:23-0700] scribed: > On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:08:58 -0500 > Rich Puhek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >If the contract did, it is likely that in signing the contract, the > > employee VOLUNTARILY AGREED that any inventions, code, etc. are the > >

Re: Code rights for employees (was Re: SCO identifies code?)

2003-08-19 Thread Steve Lamb
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:08:58 -0500 Rich Puhek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Steve Lamb wrote: > > So do you think that any artist would sign on and say that x type of > > work is owned, whole or in part, by the company regardless of whether or > > not the work was done for that copy or on their

Re: Code rights for employees (was Re: SCO identifies code?)

2003-08-19 Thread Rich Puhek
Steve Lamb wrote: So do you think that any artist would sign on and say that x type of work is owned, whole or in part, by the company regardless of whether or not the work was done for that copy or on their own? If they did, that would be their own fault, wouldn't it? It also wouldn't be the

Re: Code rights for employees (was Re: SCO identifies code?)

2003-08-19 Thread Steve Lamb
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 12:32:39 -0600 "Jamin W. Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And a conflict of interest can be handled by the employer firing the > employee, that's all that's needed. As long as I don't use code written > for them, either by me on their time or someone else, I'm free to do >

Code rights for employees (was Re: SCO identifies code?)

2003-08-19 Thread Jamin W. Collins
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 01:19:34PM -0400, Bijan Soleymani wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 10:34:35AM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote: > > > > That doesn't matter. If the employer doesn't like the employee's > > performance, they can fire them. However what that employee does on > > their time is