undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmenloparkbum18y ago0 comments

Software is not mentioned under any copyright law. Thus most ownership clauses contracts will NOT hold up in court. And as randallsquared said, most of the time ownership isn't even mentioned. I'm astonished by engineers who think this is some cut and dried issue, like NickB who points out that what Juwo mentions is "illegal" when it isn't. If it was illegal, you could make a reference a law.

Software copyright and ownership issues are murky. If they were clear cut, would Facebook be running right now?

Facebook is a great example. It depends on who you believe, but it appears that Mark Zuckerburg worked on a site that was similar to Facebook, but geared towards Harvard students. For whatever reason, he bailed and started Facebook, which was pretty much the same thing, only with a bigger scope, and better.

If he stole some PHP code, is that unethical? If he stole the idea, is that unethical? What if the guys he was working with were idiots who didn't really care, and were going to only pay attention to their rinky-dink site when they weren't at rowing practice? Is it unethical to grab someone elses idea and run with it when you know they are just going to let it lay fallow?

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

staunch18y ago

I agree software copyright and ownership can be murky. You're completely wrong about software copyrights not being licensable/transferable via contract. It's the basis for the entire software industry and you're claiming it doesn't even exist. Courts have found software to be comparable to literary works, making most general copyright law applicable. There's also plenty of special provisions and case law.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse