| 1 |
On 19.11.2012 19.02, Greg KH wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 07:41:54AM -0500, Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Thank you for these responses because they did help me understand |
| 4 |
>> copyright/left better. I appreciate your expertise in the matter |
| 5 |
>> and would hope I can draw on it again in the future, because despite |
| 6 |
>> what you said a few emails ago, copyright/left is not something that |
| 7 |
>> every software developer understands. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I'm curious as to why this is? Didn't you learn about this in school |
| 10 |
> (if you went to school for software development), or from any company |
| 11 |
> you have worked for? At numerous companies I have worked for, it was |
| 12 |
> part of the "introduction to company FOO, here's your legal training on |
| 13 |
> what to do and not to do with regards to open source." _ANY_ company |
| 14 |
> dealing with Linux should have this type of thing in place, otherwise, |
| 15 |
> as I have found out first hand, it can get you in big trouble. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
In Finland you can graduate with a computer science degree without |
| 19 |
taking any law related course. There's an optional course on IT law that |
| 20 |
is very good but not everyone takes it. For working in a company the law |
| 21 |
assigns copyright of source code automatically to the company. For |
| 22 |
proprietary shops the training could mostly be about not touching open |
| 23 |
source code without prior approval. So in summary my guess is that there |
| 24 |
are many open source contributors around who also work in IT who don't |
| 25 |
have the exposure to law you think. For people dealing directly with |
| 26 |
Linux it's probably as you say. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Regards, |
| 29 |
Petteri |
Archives