|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

In other words, DRM from top to bottom ...

In other words, DRM from top to bottom ...

Posted Nov 23, 2009 23:44 UTC (Mon) by brinkmd (guest, #45122)
In reply to: In other words, DRM from top to bottom ... by niner
Parent article: Linux Implements Support For Trusted Computing, Safer Online Transactions (The Gov Monitor)

It's true for consumers, but it is not true for workers. The FSF stays out of B2B and business-internal politics. This is then about owning the means of production.


to post comments

In other words, DRM from top to bottom ...

Posted Nov 24, 2009 12:57 UTC (Tue) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] (5 responses)

The FSF probably won't liberate you, slave, but in general, the GPL also protects you as employee. A team-member of the Gforth team once ported Gforth inside G&D to a smartcard, and since Gforth was under GPL, and he demanded to get the modified sources outside, he could do so. And this is a extremely secretive and security-sensitive company, with very tight control, and separated networks and so on.

You, as employee, have the same rights to get the source code under GPL as any other person which obtains the binary. Your employment contract, your NDA, they all don't cover this. You may refrain from doing so as "gentlemen agreement", but it is not binding, and it shouldn't harm you if you don't follow this agreement. I.e. if you work on an in-house application using a modified GPL program, you don't have to take the source outside, but if you do, your boss can't do anything about it. It's your right. At least under German law, where copyright bases on a non- and the company only owns an exclusive license - which it can't for a GPL program.

In other words, DRM from top to bottom ...

Posted Nov 24, 2009 13:11 UTC (Tue) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link] (3 responses)

That's not correct according to my understanding of the law. The code you
produce at work belongs to the company you work for. That's written in
German and Austrian law. If this code is an extension of a GPL'ed program,
that is still true. You may not take this code and use it for private
purposes _unless_ the company distributes the code and or binaries of the
resulting program. In this case you as a private person may obtain a copy
and get the full rights granted by the GPL. But the company has to
distribute it. If it does this development solely for in-house use, you
have no rights because the GPL explicitly only covers distribution. It
says something like "if you _distribute_ the program, you have to grant
these rights to the one you distribute it to".

Be careful! A wrong understanding of what this license can do and does may
lead to serious trouble.
IANAL.

In other words, DRM from top to bottom ...

Posted Nov 24, 2009 18:26 UTC (Tue) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

In the USA it depends.

I think as a employee usually you do a NDA or something like that were you
agree that all work done at work is your employer's copyright. I don't
think that is entirely necessary from a legal standpoint, but it helps make
sure people understand what is going on.

If your a contractor then that is much more out in the open. I suppose most
of the time contractors will provide copyright transfers as part of their
service, but that is really up to the contractor and the employer to
negotiate and can go either way.

Now there are some dirty tricks that are common among Universities and
whatnot. A lot of those people feel that by providing a educational
environment they are providing a community service so that things like
doing software patents is just natural for them to do to raise capital. A
sense of entitlement.

So what happens at a lot of those places is that Universities will take
student software and inventions and get software patents and take control
of the copyrights. A few times students have tried to fight them, but if
they are doing it as part of classwork and are doing it using facilities
provided by the university then I think they generally lose.

So if your a employee or, especially a student, and you want to do
something on your own you can later profit from or whatever then make sure
to do it on your own time with your own equipment or you may lose control
of it.

In other words, DRM from top to bottom ...

Posted Nov 26, 2009 20:31 UTC (Thu) by anton (subscriber, #25547) [Link] (1 responses)

In Austrian law (and a number of other European countries) the Urheberrecht belongs to the author and is not transferable (unless the author dies). There are also the Verwertungsrechte (usage rights), and they can be licensed and maybe transferred to others, but that's up to contracts. There is no automatic transfer of any rights by law, and when I asked the legal department of TU Wien about this, the lady at the other end was very surprised about my question; the idea of such an automatic transfer was obviously completely alien to her.

In other words, DRM from top to bottom ...

Posted Nov 26, 2009 21:23 UTC (Thu) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link]

Then your lady should have an occasional look at the law.

If I may cite Austrian law on this:
"§ 40b. Wird ein Computerprogramm von einem Dienstnehmer in Erfüllung
seiner dienstlichen Obliegenheiten geschaffen, so steht dem Dienstgeber
hieran ein unbeschränktes Werknutzungsrecht zu, wenn er mit dem Urheber
nichts anderes vereinbart hat."

In English (for anyone interested): if a computer program is written by an
employee while fulfilling his duties to his employer, the employer gets
unlimited usage rights unless he arranged something different with the
program's creator.

http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnorme...

Some further explanation:
http://www.fnm-austria.at/erf/info/de:Arbeitsergebnisse

In other words, DRM from top to bottom ...

Posted Nov 24, 2009 15:40 UTC (Tue) by brinkmd (guest, #45122) [Link]

Interesting, is the Gforth case documented somewhere (news articles, etc)? It would be an interesting case study.

I am not sure your interpretation of the law is correct. It's certainly complicated, and the complications are one reason the FSF stays out of this issue. Also, it may be significantly different in Germany and the US, and the FSF is a US based organization (with some quite US-centric views on politics).

In any case, the comment I was replying to was directed at the consumer protection clauses against DRM in the GPLv3, and that specifically addresses "consumer products" only ("either (1) a "consumer product", which means any
tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family,
or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation
into a dwelling.")


Copyright © 2025, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds