Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Software

Submission + - Copyright vs Exclusive License

cdanzig writes: "My company recently hired a development house to do some contract work for us. They did great work, but they are claiming that they now own the copyright on the code and are issuing us a permanent and exclusive license. My bosses are concerned that this will hamper our ability to make changes to the code or prevent us form being able to claim the software as a company asset. What is expected protocol between a client and a development house? What is the long-term difference between owning a copyright and owning an exclusive license? If we paid for the development of the code is it fair for us to demand ownership?

-cdanzig"
Nintendo

Journal Journal: Support Shigeru Miyamoto on Time magazine's poll!

Time is ranking the 100 most influential people in the world. Shigeru Miyamoto creator of mario and zelda is currently number 3, behind people we geeks could care less about. Support Miyamoto! by voting 100. Do you really want the king of Thailand, Bono or some Korean singer called Rain to get more votes? At the bottom you can see the Slashdot effect in full effect in real time

Feed Tin-Foil Beanies + 'Think of the Children!' = Newspaper Gold (techdirt.com)

The UK has seen its fair share of people freaking out over the health effects of WiFi, and a major newspaper there fanned the flames this weekend with its lead story saying children are at risk from "electronic smog". It's a strange article, though, because instead of finding any evidence that WiFi is actually harmful to people, it simply reports on how some groups are pushing for investigations into WiFi, then implies that's some sort of evidence that the technology is unsafe. This is despite previous reports that the radiation from being exposed to a WiFi network for a year is the equivalent of 20 minutes on a cell phone. Most of the noise about how harmful WiFi is comes from people claiming to have "electrosensitivity", though they generally fail double-blind tests checking out their claims that they can sense when they've entered a room with WiFi coverage. These sorts of stories are little more than hype-filled fluff that lack much substance to back up their wild headlines and implications of doom and gloom. Another case in point: a spate of articles -- started by one from the same paper as this latest WiFi scare story -- about how honeybees are being wiped out by radiation from mobile phones. The only catch was that the study in question had nothing to do with cell phones. The scientists also point out that the paper never bothered to get in touch with them, presumably because an accurate description of their research and findings would have made such a sensational story pretty dull.

Slashdot Top Deals

Your fault -- core dumped

Working...