1/8/'98


Hello all,

Well this license stuff is quite large, and it does seem that as yet no one
person seems to have the total and correct answers as each time another
argument is thrown into the pot, yes, and neither do I. However the
copyright laws have been changing in interpretation over the past few years
to not only protect an object, but also to protect an idea (IT only, so
don't bring up the question of circuit design and the old who owns the 7805
design. Yes that brings up a point: So far, the arguments have only been for
software, not / also hardware, hum?). So I too; will only comment on the
software side.

There have been several cases of software copyright over the past few years.
In general it is OK to use the idea again (And morally this is excepted as
we must build on our knowledge base), however a direct copy of code (Or even
near enough) that is OWNED by someone else is a breach of copyright.

This now leads to the point of OWNED. If your software house is engaged to
design software for client X, then does client X own the software? No? (I
don't think so), not unless this was in the contract of supply, as client X
only obtained your services to supply a design (There may be some legal
stuff about how the company presents itself to the client and on the design
or supply issue). Just like when you obtain information, advice or help from
your lawyer. You don't own the information, advice or help, you just payed
for the service. This is a sticky point, and may be wrong, but I would like
to see other peoples ideas on this. As copyright is often argued on a point
of ownership.

I think that this is a topic that is becoming more relevant to all of us
each day. We should endeavor to inform our clients of exactly "What" they
are obtaining, and its' contents, to ensure a good working relationship
between the client and supplier.

The above points may not be entirly correct, please check your own legal
sources for validity.

Dennis