From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 11 22:40:31 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AE7516A4CE for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:40:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp9.wanadoo.fr (smtp9.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9C9643D3F for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:40:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf0912.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 8BE921C005E9 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2005 23:40:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from pix.atkielski.com (ASt-Lambert-111-2-1-3.w81-50.abo.wanadoo.fr [81.50.80.3]) by mwinf0912.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 665EB1C005E3 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2005 23:40:29 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20050211224029419.665EB1C005E3@mwinf0912.wanadoo.fr Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 23:40:28 +0100 From: Anthony Atkielski X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1165530279.20050211234028@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <7E82FCE7-7C7B-11D9-B134-000D933E3CEC@shire.net> References: <649200329.20050211081852@wanadoo.fr> <621dabed4fc2996ae4cb3a2929d6842c@chrononomicon.com> <420D24EE.40606@tvog.net> <566767782.20050211231303@wanadoo.fr> <7E82FCE7-7C7B-11D9-B134-000D933E3CEC@shire.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: Please don't change Beastie to another crap logo such as NetBSD!!! X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:40:31 -0000 Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC writes: > Their employers are paying them TO WORK on FreeBSD. They are not taking > their code that they write for their employers and also sticking it in > FreeBSD. Big difference. Not if their work consists of writing code. In that case, the copyright in the code belongs to their employer (in the U.S., and in a number of other countries with similar provisions). Under 17 USC 101: "A 'work made for hire' is— (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. [...]" Note that a "collective work" is generally a book or a movie, not a computer operating system: "A 'collective work' is a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole." "Computer program" is separately defined, which means that it is not a collective work. > In the first case, they are allowing it to happen and assign > the copyrights as necessary. Do they do this in writing before the code becomes a part of the project? Do they have a written agreement with their employees that explicitly waives their work-for-hire interest in the copyright? -- Anthony