Most companies I have worked for REQUIRE developers to sign agreements stating something to the affect that 'Everything you develop while employed here is ours'. This is normally because one can NOT differentiate where someone gained experience, knowledge, and/or training.
I notice, with a smirk, this information regarding the architect's contracts with Sun is conspicuously absent.
So then the question becomes, is Sun actually Goliath, or is this a rogue employee complaining because he signed such paperwork and is having afterthoughts?
|
Does Verizon's Voyager stack up to the iPhone? |
|
|
5 IT skills that won't boost your salary 
[1,407]
Women 4 times more likely than men to cough up personal info [589]
Japan's 10 funniest tech-related commercials [Videos] [407]
Throwing away a promo CD is "unauthorized distribution"? [1,265]
Adults too quick to dismiss educational video games [682]
Attack of the iPhone clones [Slideshow] [578]
10 things IT needs to know about AJAX [1,258]
This Year's 25 Geekiest 25th Anniversaries [Slideshow] [409]
|
|
Ownership
I have no doubt that these developers had agreements with the company that any product they developed the company would own. (Own = traditional non-open-source total control, rights to market, rights to sue anybody who violated said rights, etc.)
What these developers point out is that Sun's management encouraged them to take this product -- which Sun would have otherwise 'owned' in the tradition sense -- open source. Once taken open source, Sun -- and indeed these developers -- relinquished traditional ownership rights.
In its place, these developers became "owners" (really just contributors and guiding forces over future development) of the now open-source code. Sun did not say 'we own this product now, so sign it over to us'. They said 'we know this is open source, but WE want to control future product direction -- so resign your guiding position and turn it over to Sun personnel'.
So, what was lost here wasn't 'rights' to 'own' something. It was the priveledge -- earned by putting effort into the product -- to guide future development. In the open source community, such 'takeovers' are not supposed to happen. Nor should they even be necessary -- unless, as I suspect some believe, Sun is trying to control the direction in which the product goes. (For example, if they felt that the product was a threat to a product they actually DO 'own' in the traditional sense, they might want to stifle its continued development.)
So, the point is not 'who owns the code' -- it's too late for that. It is 'why does Sun, who says they believe in the mantra of open source, go and do something that flies in the face of that mantra?' As the article states, the answer may be as simple as some out-of-control middle managers acting out of step with the company's open source direction. Or, it could be something more insidious... Either way, Sun loses credibility in the open source community.
Control vs. Ownership
I think the issue of who owns the code is a red herring. Sun would appear to own the code under the terms of the CDDL.
However the real issue is "control" over the project. This is not made clear. Sun probably intended to allow non-Sun employees to sit as one of the controlling members, but they didn't intend to give up majority control.
Sun has to decide whether it is on a path of promoting the open source communities or merely just publishing source for commercial products. It would appear that Sun's real strategy is merely just to publish source and retain proprietary ownership.
I hope I am wrong about this.
Have you read the contract?
Where I work it is easy to get permission to work on personal projects that do not create a conflict of interest. Where do you guys work?
What are you talking about?
Clearly, you don't understand open source. The complaint isn't about who owns the code its about what it means to be an owner, contributor, etc., in an OSS project and leave the company that initially sponsored the project. It appears in this case that all the owners were laid off, Sun panicked and resorted to thuggery to get full control over the project. Obviously, this sucks for the users of OpenDS as I'm sure, without the previous leadership, its melting down as we speak.
Fork
Stick a fork in it, and SUN is done.
Another side to this story
Please check Ludo's note [1] and my own note [2] for another perspective.
- eduard/o
[1]https://opends.dev.java.net/servlets/ReadMsg?list=users&msgNo=623
[2]https://opends.dev.java.net/servlets/ReadMsg?list=users&msgNo=627
Eduardo - I think you are missing a bit of the story
You omitted to point to the rebuttal to your comments: Link
Not only that, you obviously didn't read the governance document (in its state before the change you take exception to). If you care to read it, you will see that the change that was made was clearly defined as being within the powers of the people who made it.
Instead of trying to spin an obvious blunder and tactics looking a lot like blackmail, an apology and restoration of the governance document to its state before you became involved would be a small start on the road to recovery.
Sun bullies, sickening
Blackmailing owners of an Open Source project?! Is this a community or the mafia?
While I understand the business aspects of a certain level of control, threatening severance benefits is a huge step over the line. The former owners were already knocked to the curb by layoffs. To throw them under bus by threatening to take what they have left is disgusting.
Regardless of the so-called justification, (governance, are you kidding me?!!! :mad:) whoever made the threat should be fired from Sun immediately. Then he can see what it is like to worry about his severance....
Post new comment