From PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU Thu Nov 14 15:31:30 2002 Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.0.109] by dpmail10.doteasy.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-7.13) id A25211DE008A; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:31:30 -0800 Received: from PEAR.EASE.LSOFT.COM (209.119.0.19) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <2.007DA0AB@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 18:17:33 -0500 Received: from MITVMA.MIT.EDU by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 4081 for PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 18:17:23 -0500 Received: from MITVMA (NJE origin SMTP@MITVMA) by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LMail V1.2d/1.8d) with BSMTP id 4710; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 18:16:56 -0500 Received: from newmx1.fast.net [209.92.1.31] by mitvma.mit.edu (IBM VM SMTP Level 320) via TCP with ESMTP ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 18:16:55 EST X-Comment: mitvma.mit.edu: Mail was sent by newmx1.fast.net Received: (qmail 26556 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2002 23:16:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO montana) ([209.92.241.187]) (envelope-sender ) by newmx1.fast.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 14 Nov 2002 23:16:55 -0000 X-Sender: montana@pop.fast.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: <4.1.20021114181052.00a8dbc0@pop.fast.net> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 18:14:32 -0500 Reply-To: pic microcontroller discussion list Sender: pic microcontroller discussion list From: Andy Kunz Subject: Re: [OT]: Standard contract for work? To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU In-Reply-To: X-RCPT-TO: Status: R X-UIDL: 277600531 X-Evolution-Source: pop://mailinglist%40farcite.net@mail.farcite.net/ X-Evolution: 000006f7-0000 My contracts always include a clause about general purpose functions, whether derived specifically for the project or from another, will remain my property. The rationale is that these are general purpose, not required as a part of their primary algorithm. They are billed 50% for these items. There's a caveat elsewhere that says I won't use the primary algorithm (which you had better have spelled out in the contract exactly what it is) in projects for other customers. I also grant them a non-revokeable license to use the library functions (they get all the source, you see) to use it themselves in anything else. Most of the time this is not a problem. If it is, they get no source code for items which are existing library functions that get used in their system. Dealing with reasonable people helps. Andy At 02:28 PM 11/14/02 -0800, you wrote: >I'm particularly wondering how people deal with the ownership of >"library" functions developed (or just used) during a project. On >the one hand, code that I write "for hire" belongs to the client. On the >other hand, who wants to get sued because client 2 got the same software >uart (or whatever) used on client 1's project originally. (This is somewhat >easier if you already HAVE the extensive library...) > >BillW > >-- >http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics >(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- Race Boats - andy@RC-Hydros.com http://www.RC-Hydros.com Airplanes - andy@FlyingHobbies.com http://www.FlyingHobbies.com Electronics - andy@MontanaDesign.com http://www.MontanaDesign.com ------------------------------------------------------------------- -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics