Interesting dilemma
-
My boss is interested in doing x technology. x technology is a published standard (rfc of sorts) so I figured someone has to have a library out there to do x technology. I start digging around and then I find one, however, it's pretty expensive and it's per machine and we have a lot of machines, making it a no brainer, there's no way we can buy it. So what's the alternative? Write your own! That's fine and I like the challenge, but I don't like re-inventing the wheel. Oh ya, and here's the twist, the expensive library w/ a per computer license ... it has free downloadable source code! So basically you download this file with all of the source and cannot use it in a commercial environment without paying this licensing fee (non-commercial use is free and you have the source code). Here's the dilemma, what happens if while rolling your own, you take some peeks at the source code that you already have to get you through some of the trickier details of implementation, or what if you use the other library's output to compare with your own output to make sure you're doing things right ... or even better yet, what if you just copy the code and rename the functions or make the classes a little more suited to your business. At what point are you "infringing"? This is really a question of ethics considering that with the source, you can make significant modifications to the structure/architecture of the program and most likely no one will ever raise an eyebrow ... I just wondered what others thought about this situation. As it turns out, I'm most likely not going to be doing this project, but I thought this raised an interesting dilemma.
-
My boss is interested in doing x technology. x technology is a published standard (rfc of sorts) so I figured someone has to have a library out there to do x technology. I start digging around and then I find one, however, it's pretty expensive and it's per machine and we have a lot of machines, making it a no brainer, there's no way we can buy it. So what's the alternative? Write your own! That's fine and I like the challenge, but I don't like re-inventing the wheel. Oh ya, and here's the twist, the expensive library w/ a per computer license ... it has free downloadable source code! So basically you download this file with all of the source and cannot use it in a commercial environment without paying this licensing fee (non-commercial use is free and you have the source code). Here's the dilemma, what happens if while rolling your own, you take some peeks at the source code that you already have to get you through some of the trickier details of implementation, or what if you use the other library's output to compare with your own output to make sure you're doing things right ... or even better yet, what if you just copy the code and rename the functions or make the classes a little more suited to your business. At what point are you "infringing"? This is really a question of ethics considering that with the source, you can make significant modifications to the structure/architecture of the program and most likely no one will ever raise an eyebrow ... I just wondered what others thought about this situation. As it turns out, I'm most likely not going to be doing this project, but I thought this raised an interesting dilemma.
If you read the code and then implement it yourself and use any of the other code in any way then you're stealing. If you even like the way it's implemented and choose that to do it the same way, you're still stealing even if you do it without anymore peaking. It's intellectual property. Now, the fact that these guys are dumb enough to provide the source for free for something they expect you to purchase at such high rates... well I'd probably take it and run, building on it as you suggested. There's more wrong in my mind with being stupid than being a little dishonest. :rolleyes:
-
My boss is interested in doing x technology. x technology is a published standard (rfc of sorts) so I figured someone has to have a library out there to do x technology. I start digging around and then I find one, however, it's pretty expensive and it's per machine and we have a lot of machines, making it a no brainer, there's no way we can buy it. So what's the alternative? Write your own! That's fine and I like the challenge, but I don't like re-inventing the wheel. Oh ya, and here's the twist, the expensive library w/ a per computer license ... it has free downloadable source code! So basically you download this file with all of the source and cannot use it in a commercial environment without paying this licensing fee (non-commercial use is free and you have the source code). Here's the dilemma, what happens if while rolling your own, you take some peeks at the source code that you already have to get you through some of the trickier details of implementation, or what if you use the other library's output to compare with your own output to make sure you're doing things right ... or even better yet, what if you just copy the code and rename the functions or make the classes a little more suited to your business. At what point are you "infringing"? This is really a question of ethics considering that with the source, you can make significant modifications to the structure/architecture of the program and most likely no one will ever raise an eyebrow ... I just wondered what others thought about this situation. As it turns out, I'm most likely not going to be doing this project, but I thought this raised an interesting dilemma.
If you want to be totally free of legal hassles, then don't even download the source code. The whole legal thing is really complicated. What did you see? when did you see it? Were common characteristics developed independently. It is a real nightmare. We had something similar come up when we looked at using SOAP. We needed something that could run on more than just Win32 so the MS solution was out of the question. We looked around and around for an existing solution. The best one I found that I liked was EasySOAP. However, since it used exceptions, we couldn't use it. (BTW: that was something I couldn't tell until I could see the source.) So, ultimately we developed our own. One of the features of our system was that the actual transport for sending SOAP packets wasn't hard coded. When we started validating our SOAP package using an interoperability tester from EasySOAP, I noticed that he had done the exact same thing with the transports. Also, how he handed the processing of xml names, values and attributes has some similar characterizes. Even though these common features were developed independently, it would be VERY hard to prove in court, given that we had access to the source. Of course, we had to have access to the source to evaluate the package in the first place. Sort of the chicken and the egg problem. So, IMHO, DON'T DOWNLOAD THE SOURCE!!!! Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
-
If you read the code and then implement it yourself and use any of the other code in any way then you're stealing. If you even like the way it's implemented and choose that to do it the same way, you're still stealing even if you do it without anymore peaking. It's intellectual property. Now, the fact that these guys are dumb enough to provide the source for free for something they expect you to purchase at such high rates... well I'd probably take it and run, building on it as you suggested. There's more wrong in my mind with being stupid than being a little dishonest. :rolleyes:
The problem is that >=80% of good coding *is* stealing, be it intentional or not. Admitted, we coders tend to look at IP&Copyright the way it fits out immediate needs, but taking the law by letter isn't an appropriate solution either. In the end, it comes up to how much you can invest into a lawyer sqad. ----------------------------- bill: As above, taken by law, you probably loose. Something I would be confident is when you write your stuff without copy&paste their code. if you look it's the same output, if you check how they did, I would consider it ethically ok. Keep in mind that big parts of the cost go on product support (especially so if they do publish their sources), and on "bug free commercial strength" product (hopefully) - i.e. all the additional hours after Release 1.0 and the "bug finding power" of a huge user base.
-
If you read the code and then implement it yourself and use any of the other code in any way then you're stealing. If you even like the way it's implemented and choose that to do it the same way, you're still stealing even if you do it without anymore peaking. It's intellectual property. Now, the fact that these guys are dumb enough to provide the source for free for something they expect you to purchase at such high rates... well I'd probably take it and run, building on it as you suggested. There's more wrong in my mind with being stupid than being a little dishonest. :rolleyes:
Matt Philmon wrote: If you even like the way it's implemented and choose that to do it the same way, you're still stealing even if you do it without anymore peaking. It's intellectual property. So if you use a for loop in your code to do something, and I look at your source which I downloaded for free and use a For loop to do the exact same thing in a project i started from scratch then I've stolen your "intellectual property"? Joseph LeBlanc
-
If you want to be totally free of legal hassles, then don't even download the source code. The whole legal thing is really complicated. What did you see? when did you see it? Were common characteristics developed independently. It is a real nightmare. We had something similar come up when we looked at using SOAP. We needed something that could run on more than just Win32 so the MS solution was out of the question. We looked around and around for an existing solution. The best one I found that I liked was EasySOAP. However, since it used exceptions, we couldn't use it. (BTW: that was something I couldn't tell until I could see the source.) So, ultimately we developed our own. One of the features of our system was that the actual transport for sending SOAP packets wasn't hard coded. When we started validating our SOAP package using an interoperability tester from EasySOAP, I noticed that he had done the exact same thing with the transports. Also, how he handed the processing of xml names, values and attributes has some similar characterizes. Even though these common features were developed independently, it would be VERY hard to prove in court, given that we had access to the source. Of course, we had to have access to the source to evaluate the package in the first place. Sort of the chicken and the egg problem. So, IMHO, DON'T DOWNLOAD THE SOURCE!!!! Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
heh ... too late! Like I said, I'm not even going to be on the project anyway, in fact, it's not even a project ... I just overheard the boss talking about how it would be nice if he could do x feature using x technology. I figured I'd give him a push in the right direction. He hasn't seen the source yet. He wants to implement it himself, so maybe I'll just keep the little secret and let him go that route :> This was really just a question of ethics and I was interested to see how people would respond.
-
Matt Philmon wrote: If you even like the way it's implemented and choose that to do it the same way, you're still stealing even if you do it without anymore peaking. It's intellectual property. So if you use a for loop in your code to do something, and I look at your source which I downloaded for free and use a For loop to do the exact same thing in a project i started from scratch then I've stolen your "intellectual property"? Joseph LeBlanc
Yes. The rules are very clear. Of course, if it would stand up in court is another matter altogether. They could force you to disclose your source code to them so they can check you have not copied additional portions of their IP. ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven't got the guts to bite people themselves" - August Strindberg
-
My boss is interested in doing x technology. x technology is a published standard (rfc of sorts) so I figured someone has to have a library out there to do x technology. I start digging around and then I find one, however, it's pretty expensive and it's per machine and we have a lot of machines, making it a no brainer, there's no way we can buy it. So what's the alternative? Write your own! That's fine and I like the challenge, but I don't like re-inventing the wheel. Oh ya, and here's the twist, the expensive library w/ a per computer license ... it has free downloadable source code! So basically you download this file with all of the source and cannot use it in a commercial environment without paying this licensing fee (non-commercial use is free and you have the source code). Here's the dilemma, what happens if while rolling your own, you take some peeks at the source code that you already have to get you through some of the trickier details of implementation, or what if you use the other library's output to compare with your own output to make sure you're doing things right ... or even better yet, what if you just copy the code and rename the functions or make the classes a little more suited to your business. At what point are you "infringing"? This is really a question of ethics considering that with the source, you can make significant modifications to the structure/architecture of the program and most likely no one will ever raise an eyebrow ... I just wondered what others thought about this situation. As it turns out, I'm most likely not going to be doing this project, but I thought this raised an interesting dilemma.
Is "Technology X" = SSH ??? Sorry to dissapoint you all with my lack of a witty or poignant signature.
-
Yes. The rules are very clear. Of course, if it would stand up in court is another matter altogether. They could force you to disclose your source code to them so they can check you have not copied additional portions of their IP. ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven't got the guts to bite people themselves" - August Strindberg
David Wulff wrote: Yes. The rules are very clear. Of course, if it would stand up in court is another matter altogether. They could force you to disclose your source code to them so they can check you have not copied additional portions of their IP. How could the answer to my question possibly be yes? I can understand an algorithm being intellectual property because it took the company time and money to research and develop it. I consider source code to be speech. So writing your program in a similar style using similar code techniques to the other is fine. Using the algoritm that the other company developed for commercial gain without their permission would be stealing their intellectual property. Joseph LeBlanc