Should one give up his Copyrights?

[Oleg Shilo]

>I assume we are talking about C# Script - and by the way - thanks for sharing this with the rest of us! No, it is about Wix#, which is at the moment at the "teenage stage" comparing to C# Script. Thank you for your response/support. It seems like my interpretation of the situation is consistent with the one people have here. :) Thanks, Oleg

[Oleg Shilo]

Thank you all for your answers. I feel better now. So I am not the only one who find the situation a bit "strange".

[Mladen Jankovic]

I'm not sure how they CAN screw you if he isn't willing to be screwed. He's more then welcome to reject the offer (as I would). Now depending on the type of the license he used, GPL for instance, he should watch whether they'll use his code in their product anyways.

GALex

[Lost User]

Wix# ? Don't wonder about the broad grins in people's faces when you sell it in Germany. :) Naming your project can be hard, especially avoiding any unintended meanings in other languages. On the other hand it could also draw some attention to it, so just keep going. :)

At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity

[Iain Clarke Warrior Programmer]

The way you've described this seems very odd to me. They can already use your stuff free of charge. They have the source code. If you went to live on a desert island, they'd be no worse off then that now. They want you to give them the rights to this "thing" if you ignore them - not just grant them continuing rights to use it. Unless they're going to pay you to develop this thing further, or buy the exclusive rights from you, I really can't see why you'd even bother with rejecting them. Where's your incentive in all this? Business is trade for mutual profit. If it's onesided, just reply with "dream on!", or "talk to me when you have a clue." Iain.

I am one of "those foreigners coming over here and stealing our jobs". Yay me!

[Mark_Wallace]

If the source is open, they don't need that kind of guarantee. If you stop working on it, they can just take the source and update it themselves. It sounds like they're trying to do one of two things: - Kill your product because they have produced something similar. - Kill the open-source element of your product, so that they can sell it and profit from your work. Either way, they will steal your customers -- and you will probably find that the contract will even allow them to charge you for using your own product. I'd run a mile.

I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

[Oleg Shilo]

Ha-ha, I have asked my German colleague about meaning of 'Wix#' in German. Well... the girl eventually explained it but she clearly felt uncomfortable. ;) But at least it was not me who created the problem. I am not responsible for the 'Wix' part, I just added '#'. But from now on I will make 'WixSharp' a preferred written form.

[rittingj]

first, you should be aware that you hold all the cards. You have no obligation to do or sign anything with any third party. The fact that they approached you simply indicates their reluctance to use a product without ownership. You are in a position to negotiate and sell or license as you see fit. Best advice I could give you is not to sign until you speak directly with them and get what you want from the deal. It really does not matter whether you have licensed the software or are giving it away as open source code. They are looking for a reason to use a product you have rights to and it is entirely up to you how you allow that process to unfold.furthermore, you should never give up your rights to ownership, derivative work, or any other form without adequate compensation. They know this and hope that you do not. Good luck.

regards, jr

[Lost User]

Oleg Shilo wrote:

the girl eventually explained it but she clearly felt uncomfortable.

But why? The word is spelled differently, but pronounced the same and used to mean polishing something until it shines. Like shoes, for example. Nothing bad about it :)

At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity

[austin hamman]

an explanation for those not up on their german slang? from your context i get that the meaning is something similar to wank but im more curious what the word IS (since my dictionary, which usually has slang, does not have anything for wix or wichs)

[thomas michaud]

Usually this sort of contract is done with commercial software (not open source). The company in question offers to pay the licensing fees (and additional fees for the source), but in the event the small software shop closes up, their business doesn't go belly-up for lack of a critical piece of software. In short - it's time for you to negotiate. If you sign the contract, as written, they can claim you stopped developing and take the software at time (and you've received nothing for it.)

[satovey]

I've seen an employment contract that was just as devilish from an organization that claimed to be a Christian ministry. It was so stacked against the employee that the employee would owe the company money even if God Himself caused the employee to failed to fulfill part of the contract. That is not being Christian. Here's what I suggest you should consider doing: Send them a notice stating: Whereas the company, "the company name" has actively plotted, conspired, schemed and actively attempted to defraud, steal, rob, and or con the rightful owner and developer of WinSharp out of his legal and lawful intellectual property, all rights and licenses of "the company name" to use WinSharp is hereby now and forever revoked. As the rightful developer and owner of WinSharp is not willing nor at liberty to deal with individuals and companies that are as morally and intellectually limited as "the companies name" has proven themselves to be through their rejected offer. It would be even funnier if it was a legal cease and desist order issued by a judge. :laugh: Unless of course you want to negotiate a reasonable contract with them. Personally, I'd be to offended and just let my compulsive perfectionist disorder respond to what is clearly a group of stupid people. It is one thing for a person to make a mistake, but being as obviously stupid as this offer implies they are, I don't think I could help myself with informing them of just how stupid they are. If you decide to negotiate with them, make damned sure you hire an attorney and a good one at that. And be as cynical as a cynic can be. The people and this company can not and should not be trusted one iota. It might be a good idea for people providing free software to stipulate in their licenses that the license and right to use the software freely will be revoked if the individual or company attempts to obtain ownership of the software through unscrupulous and underhanded legal means. Scott A. Tovey

[Lost User]

Instead of simply rejecting their proposal, make a counter-proposal (that suits yourself). Even "open source" software sometimes has a "commercial" option that is available (for a price). My guess is they want to use your software in their product; perhaps make significant changes; but to protect their own business (new ideas), do not want to flow back their changes to the community. It's these "reciprocal clauses" that make commercial software companies think twice about incorporating open source software into their product (IMO). Then again, maybe this company just does not understand you license and they already have all the freedom they want / need.

[Yortw]

The concept is not unusual, regardless of how the software is licensed (although the terms might be). I bleieve the company I work for, which produces fully commercial software that must be purchased by customers, has 'escrow' agreements with several of them. I don't know the exact terms, but it's something along the lines of if we go bankrupt or cease trading, those companies receive a full-rights, non-exclusive *copy* of the source code. However, I believe the contract restricts them to using it to run their own businesses that already have licenses (i.e they can't turn around and start selling it to other companies, or start a new business themselves using it). I also don't think they get access to the source code if we choose to stop developing a product (if we just choose to stop but are still trading as a commercial entity, we'll help them manage the migration to whatever else). I've heard of other companies doing this too, particularly where the software company that owns the product is relatively small and unknown. I'm not sure if they pay extra for those agreements that or not. It's really just a peace of mind thing, and we've never actually had the contract 'used' as far as I know. Also, being closed commercial software as opposed to open source, they don't get the source until the terms of the contract are met. I'm not suggesting you agree to their plan, only that it's not unheard of and not simply an open source thing. If you do choose to agree, I'd say look at the terms very carefully and make sure they limit what they can do and when. That way you should be able to protect yourself, while alleviating their concerns.

[Oleg Shilo]

Thank you all. It has been fascinating to see that the topic is so engaging for so many people. I have already sent the rejection email and I do not expect any continuation of this story. I am still confused about the motives of this company and I guess I will never really know ... For me personally their proposal was a bit offending. I see nothing wrong with asking if the author would consider migrating to some more liberal licence, or implementing a new feature tailored to their business needs, or selling his product. It is indeed OK. In fact when I decided to restrict modifications of my source code (while allowing them for Open Source and non-profit projects) I was trying to trigger some commercial propositions. But not like this... The company did not offer even a symbolic donation or any alternative form of support and yet they expect one to be happy to accept the condition "...you stop developing or responding to requests". I can easy imagine such scenario: - We request feature A. - This feature conflicts with the purpose of the product. - We request feature A. - Sorry but no. - We request feature A. - We request feature A. - You stopped responding. We are forking you product.

[G Tek]

I'm replying a little late to this and the other replies seem to cover the topic well. The only thing I'll comment on is that it's worth asking, rather than assuming, to try and determine their intent. The intentions behind their request can vary from malicious (let's put this guy out of business to become the exclusive provider of this solution) to ignorant (not understanding what options they already have based on your current licensing agreement). I suggest you ask to get clarification. If they're not able to reasonably explain themselves in short order then (in my experience) they're either out to harm (avoid them) or they just don't "get it" (at which point it's up to you to decide how much time you are willing to invest in working with them). Regardless, what you have is worth something to them - if it wasn't, then they wouldn't be asking for it. You can counter with an offer that you think is reasonable or ask them to make a reasonable offer (I'd suggest the latter). If they don't put forward a serious offer then politely tell them that you can only entertain serious offers. They can't expect something for nothing. Good luck, Chris