Then why does FSF require GCC contributors to assign copyright?

This chap is in the UK, so its a whole different kettle of fish.

In the USA, he owns his own work. Without an explicit contract to the contrary, he still owns it, and even with a contract, he still owns it. As a result, any contract over here where the client really wants the code will include the language along the lines of "even if the law determines that you own the copyright, we the client gets an exclusive, permanent license to use it, and you don't get to give it to anyone else". Its also why my contracts are clear about what they, the client, do get, and what they don't.

On the whole, stuff that we agree that they are going to "own", I keep copyright, and they get permanent, exclusive, right to assign etc. Then there's stuff that I give them a non-exclusive source code license for, and then there's stuff that they only get binary rights to, and for all of that they may or may not have the right to sublicense, redistribute etc etc. There is no excuse not have this clear.

There are memorandums of understanding, and even without paper, there are conversations to be had (and *documented* that I had them if it ever gets ugly which is unlikely if I have them at all). Conversations are an opportunity to explain what they get and why, and why this is a benefit for them. Also, its an opportunity for me to learn if they just want me to do all the hard work and then give it to a script kiddy, or whether they want to establish a relationship. And sometimes the rest of the work will only require a script kiddy, and I'd be bored to tears anyway, even subcontracting it out - and if that's the case, we can work out a price. Its called negotiation.

The other issue in the USA is the IRS. The IRS doesn't care about what a contract says on paper. If I am were to work as an employee would, then I would be an employee as far as the IRS is concerned. So if the client owned what I produce (all of it), that's one big check box on the IRS's duck test. The penalties are significant. For the employer, they would have to pay me as an employee and would owe more tax. As an employee, I would lose the ability to write off my expenses.

I initially thought this was unfair. But after consideration, I think it is quite fair. If a programmer don't have the guts to turn down contracts that basically make them a wage slave, then they don't get to pretend they are an independent business and reap the tax benefits that those of us taking a risk do get. At least be clear that an employer/employee relationship exists, and negotiate accordingly. I could say that pretending otherwise "hurts us all", but while it does to an extent, it *really* hurts those who the IRS look at. I go to great lengths to make sure that what I want to own, I own, and I am taking financial risks to do that. I see it as investment.

Reality:

Copyright is Law.

Break the Law and get sued and lose.

Lose and don't pay, and men with guns come to your house and take your physical stuff.

Therefor, in this reality, non-physical stuff has value as does physical stuff.

Copyright law says I own it.

Copyright law says if you want it, you pay what I say, or you don't get it. (see above about guns)

Market forces says you pay what we agree its worth, not what you think it cost me to develop it.

That is why GPL exists. For example, the GCC toolkit *has* value. That value has "already been paid for". But if you want to modify the toolkit for your own purposes, you agree to give your modifications back to the community. It is a *trade*. Your new value for their "paid for" value. Just because something has already been paid for does not mean it is now free. Quite the opposite.

It is called an *investment*.

Do you pay them as employees also, with W-2's and withholding or do you have a special IRS-proof scheme that you've actually tested with the IRS? Or are you not in the USA?

In drafting their contract to encourage Customers to demand of the Developers that the code is bug free, they chose to provide this at the top:

"DISCLAIMER

THIS DOCUMENT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED GUIDANCE ONLY. IT IS STRONGLY RECOMMENDED THAT YOU CONSULT A QUALIFIED ATTORNEY TO HELP YOU NEGOTIATE A SOFTWARE CONTRACT.

Please be advised that there is no warranty, expressed or implied, and no assumption of any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use, or the results of such use of this Document."

I guess code can be made 100% accurate, but not legal contracts, huh?

"The Vendor shall be responsible for verifying that all members of the developer team have been successfully trained in secure programming techniques.

Pre-contract award, the Vendor shall document the process including training courses that their application developers have taken prior to developing applications.

Pre-contract award, the Vendor shall certify to the Purchaser that only application developers who have received appropriate level of formal training on secure application development and passed a competency test on application security shall be involved in the Contract."

Translation:

We, the security consultants, are going out of business and need to sell more training courses.
We, the managers of big companies, are going out of business and need someone to blame. You know that we will still accept the lowest bid, and we know that you're qualifications will be faked, but at least when the shit hits the fan we can point at you and say it wasnt our fault.

And yet look at what they were able to come up with. WPF and Silverlight don't give you a nice widget set. They give you a f***-ton of functionality. Plenty of rope, basically.

Not that this is a bad thing, however. As a developer, anything that makes it harder for newbies to get in the game is fine with me :-)

Not really. Took me a few goes to learn how to drive a car. But now I'd say its pretty easy to use. On the other hand, the good old-fashioned corkscrew was obvious first time, but its a real bitch to get the cork out.

I thought the vapor *was* Vista. Didn't they promise an amazing new OS with tons of new features, awesome usability, and the end of windows XP?

Where do *you* live? I remember last year I pulled out my new iPhone. There were five of us in the meeting talking about it. Three of us had them. Guy number for says, "I'm still hangin' on! Its me and Phil! We're not selling out!". At which point Phil grins and pulls out his new iPhone too. Now all five of us have them. My wife has one. My friends wife has a iPod touch. I'm at the gym this morning. Lady next to me on eliptical: iPhone. Guy across from me: iPhone. Guy half asleep in park yesterday, iphone lying on his face...

I like fact checking, so I typed "RIM Market Share" into google.

http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2009/10/28/rim-and-apple-top-u-s-smartphone-market-share/

RIM: 40%
Apple: 30%

Or this one, for Wi-Fi enabled handsets, 2Q 2009:

Nokia 9300
Apple 5200
RIM 4125

Or this one from August 2008, under the awesome headline: RIM Nearly Triples Q2 U.S. Market Share
RIM captured 11% of the U.S. market -- selling some 4.6 million million phones

If your mum buys a 30" apple monitor it will plug right in. That's the point. OTOH your mum will be SOL when she finds out her shiny Samsung is hmdi only, and her laptop is VGA.

I find it ironic that you use the "I just want it to work today" statement as a justification for windows! You've obviously never run windows and osx side by side. I always thought pretty Windows was pretty stable and that linux/mac guys just griped. Since switching to linux about two years ago, and now osx for six months, I'm amazed just how awful windows is. Simple example: last time I opened my asus laptop with its original OS and drivers, and it failed to come on? Every day. Last time I lifted the lid on my macbook pro and it failed to come on? Er, never. "Does it turn on?", is about the most basic aspect of "I just want it to work today" I can think of.

Jamie

Rubbish. My sister-in-law has a samsung blu-ray player with netflix on it. Its great. People don't care where it comes from, as long as it works. The opinions on here appear to be those of the technical "elite", which is basically 0.0001% of the population. Everyone else will use one of these systems, and probably both. There's no reason for both sides not to give out the player software for free - in fact, they already do.

Its not antitechnology. Its not anti "might makes right", since the might of the Pandora sentience wins. Its not anti anything. Its a movie. Any negative associations are in the mind of YOU the viewer.

Personally, I think that if the management of the corporation in the movie had any skill at all, they would have recognized that the Na'vi would fuck them over militarily in a standard engagement and nuked them from orbit. Or they could have drilled under the tree from a mile away Or countless other possibilities. But that's because I tend to believe that management in large corporations is defective - so that's what this movie is about for me.

Perhaps someone from a culture where such things happen, and who personally doesn't like it, would have thought that this movie was anti-arranged-marriage.