[thelist] Copyright ownership under LGPL

Ken Schaefer ken at adOpenStatic.com
Tue Jun 15 00:06:54 CDT 2004

From: "the head lemur" <headlemur at lemurzone.com>
Subject: Re: [thelist] Copyright ownership under LGPL

: > The next issue is protecting the identity of the client
: > (which is another issue). I agree that David has not
: > supplied any particulars of the client - fine. But will David
: > never put this client on his portfolio or resume? I suppose
: > that's a moot point at this stage. It's also secondary to the
: > concern above IMHO.
: Let's review the terms and conditions of lists like this. This is an
: email list that is devoted to talking and discussing things weblike.
: As a list that ''You Have to Subscribe To'', you understand that not
: only are your questions, comments, and snarky replies like this
: one seen by every other active list member, but in the case of this
: list, is also archived and available on the internet.

So why is David posting, verbatim, an instant messenger conversation he had
with his client?

I stated that I would be hesitant to use a supplier to posted any
conversation I had with said supplier to a public list. I do not have a
problem with David posting the details of his dilemma and asking for advice.
However, posting conversations that he has had with his client is another

: So if you are worried about confidentiality, after reading this part
: turn off your computer, open the case and destroy the harddrive
: with a 10 pound sledge hammer and scatter the pieces in the
: largest body of water you can fine and seek other things to do
: with your time.

I am not seeking to hire you, or anyone else on the list, to enter into any
contractual arrangement. Furthermore, I am posting this to a public list,
and I'm aware of what that entails.

That is entirely different to me conversing with my insurance company, or my
real estate agent about a possible contractual arrangement, and then having
them turn around and post that information *without my knowledge or consent*
to third parties.

Now David has apologised for this - I don't think he needs to apologise to
us. If he should be apologising, it is to his potential client. If David
really wants to post these conversations he can. I'm just suggesting that
this lowers his credibility as a supplier in my eyes (and possibly others).
I say this because he may not be aware of this, and may take this into
account in future (or maybe not - it's up to him).

: The issue is not one's belief in some standard of behaviour or
: professionalism but an inquiry regarding the issue of 'copyright'  which
: an area that woefully undercovered and is not well understood by amateur,
: intermediate and professional designers and pixel mechanics.


: From what is above, his client wants to have his cake and eat it
: too. He wants David to do the work, and then he wants to turn around
: and package it.

Nothing wrong with that IMHO. A lot of people make their money doing that. A
lot of people also, in turn, buy that software because they think it makes
good business sense. If both parties are informed, and can come to a
mutually agreeable price then I don't see why we should be interfering. You
appear to have a philosophical objection to that. You're welcome to your

: David needs to turn his client over to a guy like Ken, who may
: create the lalapalooza of web applications in the dark under a full
: moon, and then offer it to an unsuspecting public like a used car
: salesman, encumbered with restrictions like you find on every
: piece of Microsoft Software.
: Then they can both stay up late scouring the web for
: miscreants, ne'er do wells, and even pirates using their software
: without paying for it, and spend the largest part of their incomes
: and savings suing every one in sight, like SCO. The lawyers will
: get rich, these guys will get 15 minutes of fame and the rest of the
: world will probably not even bother to blog it.

...and this is where it all starts going off the rails. It's a shame you
felt the need to associate my name with certain business practices. Ad
Hominem attacks are pretty low.


More information about the thelist mailing list