Michelle Murrain wrote:
> I can definitely see that logic. But how about this scenario: a company hires
> you to write some code for a specific project, pays you, then releases that
> code as open-source software?
That's fine.
> What if a client paid you to do a particular
> job, and they didn't care what you did with the software. Would you keep it,
> or release it as open-source?
If a client paid me and there was no other note in the contract, it's
work-for-hire and belongs to the client. So no, *I* wouldn't release it, but
I'd probably let them know it was an option.
> But back to the open-source issue in question: if you could get paid anyway,
> *and* give away the software without it affecting your income, would you do
> that?
Why not?
> I'm thinking that if the proprietary/closed-source paradigm wins out, we get
> a world full of companies like microsoft, with few alternatives. I don't like
> that scenario.
Neither do I. But I don't see the options as strictly binary - closed
or open. I see room for both.
To me, most of the questions you just asked are non-issues - I suspect
I don't 'hear' what you're asking.
Jenn V.
--
"Do you ever wonder if there's a whole section of geek culture
you miss out on by being a geek?" - Dancer.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Jenn Vesperman http://www.simegen.com/~jenn/
_______________________________________________
issues mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
