Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

State Trooper Fights For His Source Code

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon Jan 15, 2007 12:35 PM
from the man-getting-the-man-down dept.
BarneyRabble writes to tell us that a Wisconsin State Trooper is fighting to maintain control of the source code for a program he wrote that helps officers write traffic tickets electronically. Praised by the state just 18 months ago, Trooper David Meredith is now suing the head of patrol claiming that the state is trying to illegally seize the source that he had developed on his own time. From the article: "Meredith, of Oconto Falls, defied an order from his bosses to relinquish the source code - the heart of the program - in October and instead deposited it with Dane County Circuit Judge David T. Flanagan, pending a ruling on who should control it. The case centers on how the software was developed. Department of Transportation attorney Mike Kernats said the State Patrol - a division of DOT - provided Meredith with a computer to write the software and gave him time off patrol duties so he could do the work. But Meredith said in court filings that he spent hundreds of hours off duty working on it, developing it almost entirely on his own time. He noted that he never signed a software licensing agreement."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Resources (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lordsilence (682367) * on Monday January 15 2007, @12:39PM (#17615808) Homepage
    What if the state claims that he was using their resources and knowledge about how ticket-system works?
    Would that affect the case?
    • by The MAZZTer (911996) <megazzt&gmail,com> on Monday January 15 2007, @12:46PM (#17615922) Homepage
      Only if Microsoft should be entitled to the source code of every Windows application ever written.
      • Re:Resources (Score:5, Interesting)

        by bennomatic (691188) on Monday January 15 2007, @01:03PM (#17616194) Homepage
        Companies have tried this sort of thing before. In the early days of Lotus 123, they realized that people were making pretty good money writing custom applications within Lotus using their scripting language, and so they made some machiovellian modifications to their licensing agreement that made all scripts written in their language their property.

        My understanding is that there were some legal challenges to that, but the main thing was that they essentially killed the golden goose. Lotus was (and still is, in it's present incarnation as "Notes" under IBM) a great system, with amazing flexibility. A lot of people swear by it, using it to run just about everything in their business. But that sort aggressive licensing took a lot of wind out of L123's sales--pun intended--and other companies were ready to fill the void, turning it into an also-ran.

        • by CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) on Monday January 15 2007, @01:12PM (#17616340) Journal
          A lot of people swear by it

          Let me fix that for you.

          A lot of people swear at it

          There, thats better ;-)
          • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 15 2007, @01:41PM (#17616748)

            Your sig: My info page is filling up with rejected posts. How can I purge these?

            The real problem is that you obviously don't know how submit stories the "slashdot way." Here are some basic tips for submitting stories:
            1. Never submit an original or timely story.
            Instead please submit week-old stories from CNet News [com.com].
            2. When submitting a story, please try to misspell words or make critical grammatical errors.
            While in normal circumstances this would be unacceptable, it is considered l33t on Slashdot.
            3. Always pander to the liberal, anti-MS, or anti-digital rights sycophants on Slashdot with an absurd political statement in the guise of a question.
            Example: "Given the fact that the format issues with high-definition optical disks have yet to be worked out, how can we foil further assaults on our Constitutional rights by George Bush?
            4. Submit stories that are as polarizing as possible.
            Example title: Totally Unknown and Unqualified Blogger Says Linux is Better Than Mac.
            Example Text: 13-year-old student, Little Billy Ballinger, has issued his annual assessment of Operating Systems and Linux has come out on top. FTA: "As a guy who has only used my mom's spyware-laden Windows 98 machine, I find myself in a unique position to declare a winner in the OS wars--and I choose Linux."

    • Re:Resources (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Tanuki64 (989726) on Monday January 15 2007, @01:01PM (#17616172)
      If this works, I hope you did not get your knowledge and education on a public school. Everything you create would automatically belong to the state.
    • Re:Resources (Score:5, Interesting)

      by pilgrim23 (716938) on Monday January 15 2007, @01:25PM (#17616524)
      I worked state gov once, and wrote some very useful code, useful to me and handy for co-workers. But I was never hired to write it,nor was I paid for writing it. When I left, I left the code in a file location that was not archived, was not backed up, and was not saved. Still available, still used and everyone was happy till... 30 days later it went bye bye. I get a call at my new job "Where are those files????" I said: "Gee I am not sure, did you archive them with your other (paid for) important software? No? well then gee I'm not sure, no, I did not keep a copy, no, I don't recall how it worked, but if you pay me a reasonable consulting fee I might possibly could...."
    • Re:Resources (Score:5, Interesting)

      by WindBourne (631190) on Monday January 15 2007, @01:34PM (#17616648) Journal
      Knowledge? No. But they paid for part of the work. As such, the state will most likely say that it was an implied contract and either say thanx for the unpaid work or offer to pay him some amount. After all, this is not much different than having a secretary doing some of bosses work. Just because they are doing above and beyond what their job calls for does not give you relief from employers rights. After all, if any of developers started up a project at work that had NOTHING to do with the job AND we did it on company time, then generally we lose all rights.
      • Re:Resources (Score:5, Insightful)

        by caseydk (203763) on Monday January 15 2007, @02:07PM (#17617054) Homepage Journal
        Oh man, this is *yet another* example of why you should keep your "hobbies" distinct from your job. If he had turned around and sold copies of it to other stations, not a problem, but once he deployed a single version at work, he opened up a world of pain for himself.

        In addition, even if he got permission from his supervisors to develop whatever, whenever and he would have right to it, doesn't mean this is the case. It is unlikely that his supervisors have authorization to give this permission and/or to make capital purchases. Those decisions would have been made at a higher level.
        • Re:Resources (Score:5, Informative)

          by stevew (4845) on Monday January 15 2007, @02:41PM (#17617460) Journal
          When you read the article - it says he did "almost" all the development on this own time. As soon as that "almost" creeps in there, the state can correctly argue that they paid for part of the development. That is the opening they need to gain at least partial ownership of the program. Because of that and the state providing him training to learn how to connect to the Tracs system - me thinks this isn't a slam dunk for the officer.

          In CA (as has been mentioned MANY times before on slashdot) there is a specific law stating that what is developed by an employee on the employee's own time belongs to the employee as long as there was no company resources were used. The officer wouldn't be able to claim that as described by the officer even in a state that has such specific provisions in their own state codes.

          I wish him luck - but I suspect the state is going to win this one.
          • Federal Law (Score:5, Interesting)

            by coats (1068) on Monday January 15 2007, @03:21PM (#17618108) Homepage
            IANAL, but...

            The officer is wrong on one point: this is a matter for Federal law. (The very same issue is why Novell was able to move SCO vs. Novell from Utah court to Federal Court.)

            Federal law controls on copyight matters, overiding both state law and whatever contract he was (forced to) sign. And Federal law says that the program is his, and not the State of Wisconsin's, unless either (a) it was produced during the normal course of his working day; or (b) it was specifically commissioned in writing; or else (c) there is a signed written specific instrument of conveyance (US Code Title 17, Chapter 1 Section 101 and Chapter 2 Section 204).

  • by ShaunC (203807) * on Monday January 15 2007, @12:39PM (#17615810) Homepage
    For once I find myself actually rooting for a cop! Next thing you know, Microsoft will be giving away Windows, and Wal-Mart will go bankrupt... Someone pinch me before I wake up.
      • Re:Head Asplode... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TheRaven64 (641858) on Monday January 15 2007, @01:26PM (#17616536) Homepage Journal

        Especially since his source code makes ticketing more efficient. Which is bad for the rest of us.
        I never understand the view that good enforcement of a law is a bad thing. Either the law is just, in which case enforcement can not be bad, or the law is unjust, in which case good enforcement will highlight this to a significant proportion of the electorate, ensuring that it is fixed sooner.
        • Re:Head Asplode... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Kazzahdrane (882423) on Monday January 15 2007, @02:01PM (#17616982)
          I see/hear a lot of that here in the UK. People are always complaining that the government make too much money from speeding fines and want them to cut the number of speeding cameras on the UK's roads. However, these people never seem to accept that if they just didn't break the law they'd have no fines to worry about. It's pathetic - not only do they feel no shame in breaking a law that is there for the public safety, they feel it is their unwritten right to break it and not be punished.

          You never hear any of them suggesting the government do a study or a trial to see if our speed limits could safely be higher.
          • Re:Head Asplode... (Score:4, Insightful)

            by PitaBred (632671) <slashdot.pitabred@dyndns@org> on Monday January 15 2007, @02:55PM (#17617720) Homepage
            So what happens when the state sets the speed limit of a road that is safely driven at 55MPH to 45MPH? People still drive faster because that's what the road is built for and their habits are, there's no safety issue, but all of a sudden people are inconvenienced and the state fills it's coffers off of a change that had no reason to be made. That's why people get upset at things like that.
              • by Matimus (598096) <mccredie@nOSPAM.gmail.com> on Monday January 15 2007, @02:39PM (#17617438)
                That is a very idealistic view of terms like Law and Justice. And, while I agree with your statements, I don't think that kind of rhetoric is helpful. Maybe traffic laws don't reduce injustice but they do serve an important purpose. They also need to be enforced, otherwise they are meaningless. Maybe law is the wrong term for what is really a rule in what could be defined as traffic protocol. You agree to following this protocol in exchange for the privilege of using a vehicle on public roads. A new institution could be setup for enforcing traffic protocol, which is completely separate from the police or any notion of justice. Would that really be any better?
  • Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Some Clown (586320) on Monday January 15 2007, @12:39PM (#17615816)
    There's a donut joke in here somewhere...
  • by Falladir (1026636) <kingfalladir@yahoo.com> on Monday January 15 2007, @12:40PM (#17615822)
    Gee, I wonder which side /. will take...
  • The minute they... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by just_another_sean (919159) on Monday January 15 2007, @12:40PM (#17615828) Homepage Journal
    ...encouraged him and offered to let him use their resources (time at work and a PC) he should of asked for some kind of agreement in writing that it was his.

    My boss is very liberal about what we do in the IT department as long as things are running smoothly and we get long term projects done on time. But even here I am careful to keep anything I might potentially think of as mine at home and off company equipment.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Unless his employment contract specifies that his employer owns any work product he produces while on company time and/or resources, then he owns it, not the employer. It comes down to a simple question - was source code a "work for hire" or not. If the contract does not spell it out as a "work for hire" then it defaults to not and he owns it, even if he developed it 100% on company and using 100% company resources.

      However, if his employment contract does contain a work for hire clause, then he screwed h
  • by agoliveira (188870) <adilson@adilson . n et> on Monday January 15 2007, @12:41PM (#17615856)
    It does not matter how trivial. If you're into something like this, aways write it down and have the other part sign it. Period. I've had more than my share on this kind of issues and even turn some jobs down because of this so, better safe than sorry.
  • by Genjurosan (601032) on Monday January 15 2007, @12:44PM (#17615888)
    Otherwise private business will implement it and we won't be able to get out of our speeding tickets. In this case we want the government to own it, since we all know how screwed up the source code become.
  • Tracs (Score:4, Insightful)

    by operagost (62405) on Monday January 15 2007, @12:44PM (#17615890) Homepage Journal
    I'm wondering if the fact that it may be a derivative work of Tracs could actually be a bigger issue. The article didn't make it clear whether he actually modified parts of Tracs or just wrote an interface to it.
  • FYI... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Otter (3800) on Monday January 15 2007, @12:45PM (#17615908) Journal
    1) In most states, the presumption is that work-related inventions by a salaried worker belong to the employer, whether or not an explicit agreement has been signed. (Don't know the specifics about Wisconsin, or about how a trooper would be classified.)

    2) Accepting a work computer and other considerations has *got* to seriously jeopardize his claim. For heaven's sake, do *not* accept anything like that for work which you want to own, unless you get explicit acknowledgment that your employer sees it the same way.

    • "1) In most states, the presumption is that work-related inventions by a salaried worker belong to the employer, whether or not an explicit agreement has been signed. (Don't know the specifics about Wisconsin, or about how a trooper would be classified.)"

      Assuming this is true - please site reference - you pretty much invalidate it because you don't know this about Wisconsin.

      It is standard practice in the IT industry to sign an agreement that any work you create as part of your employment is the property of
  • Licensing (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kevin_conaway (585204) on Monday January 15 2007, @12:46PM (#17615924) Homepage

    The article says:

    Meredith said in court filings that he spent hundreds of hours off duty working on it, developing it almost entirely on his own time. He noted that he never signed a software licensing agreement.

    However, it goes on to state:

    In 2003, the state sent Meredith to Iowa to get trained on the Iowa Department of Transportation's Traffic and Criminal Software, or TraCS. Iowa gave Wisconsin the software for free on the condition that Wisconsin not develop the application for commercial purposes, said Kernats. At the request of his superiors, Meredith tweaked the program so that it would work in Wisconsin and created a way to import driver information and criminal histories into it. The software that imports data saves time and prevents errors, said Jones, the union president.

    If he did indeed base his work off another piece of software (that was given to him on the condition that he not sell it commercially), then I don't think he really has a leg to stand on.

  • by Wee (17189) on Monday January 15 2007, @12:50PM (#17616002)
    The troubling part is that they're using a program which is inherently unmaintainable. Without the source, or a vendor, they can't really rely on anything. They can't fix bugs, get improvements, etc. I realize that the cop wants to become a vendor, but that's not quite the same thing. What if it's found that his program issues tickets to the wrong person in some cases? Who's liable? Sounds like he wants to be. Is he bonded or insured?

    The police force should have never accepted the program without accompanying source code, or (worst case) some sort of license.

    -B

  • by RightSaidFred99 (874576) on Monday January 15 2007, @12:52PM (#17616020)
    Why is this even a controversy? The minute they provided him with any resource to work on it (work time, computer, etc...) it became theirs. This is not open to discussion.

    In fact, in most cases if the work is any any way related to his work domain it's theirs even if they _didn't_ provide any resources, or at least they have a strong case to argue this.

    He's wasting his time and the court's time, he can't win.

  • by mpapet (761907) on Monday January 15 2007, @12:53PM (#17616042) Homepage
    It is pretty much always the case, the gov't will own the source on this one for many reasons.

    1. Body of Employee Law
    Since most employer/employee law leaves no room for interpreting "spare time" vs. "work time" other than how much money you have to lawyer-up he'll lose on this one because he'll run out of money defending his position.

    2. Body of State/Fed Law
    I know the Feds have a policy whereby they own the source on things written for them. It would not surprise me to hear this used as the "authority" whereby the code is taken.

    What's sad is the guy has committed career suicide at this point and, if he hasn't already blown a bunch of money lawyering-up for the pricipal/principal(sp?) that this is his code.

    Developers please note: This kind of theft of useful code/ideas is SOP in public service. If you have a great idea, develop it on your own time and find a completely unrelated avenue to promoting it. GPL is one way to go about this.
  • by Fox_1 (128616) on Monday January 15 2007, @12:56PM (#17616092) Homepage
    FTA Eighteen months ago, the State Patrol praised trooper David Meredith for going beyond the call of duty by developing time-saving software that helps officers write traffic tickets electronically.
    In 2003, the state sent Meredith to Iowa to get trained on the Iowa Department of Transportation's Traffic and Criminal Software, or TraCS. Iowa gave Wisconsin the software for free on the condition that Wisconsin not develop the application for commercial purposes, said Kernats.
    At the request of his superiors, Meredith tweaked the program so that it would work in Wisconsin and created a way to import driver information and criminal histories into it. The software that imports data saves time and prevents errors, said Jones, the union president

    Dang, on the one hand he's praised for going beyond call of duty (great game too) and on the other he was assigned to the project by his bosses.
    This Trooper isn't a programmer first, he's a cop, who does cop things like write speeding tickets (over 2k a year FTA).
    He screwed up by doing what his bosses asked him to do without having paper in place to cover what would happen to his work.
    They screwed up by asking a non-programmer (I sure he is a code wizard but he was hired to be cop first) to do something beyond their job description using personal skills and ultimately personal time.
    Interesting enough, if I read it right, if the State gets control of the modified software, they won't be selling it for commercial gain, whereas it seems Mr Meredith is interested in making money off of his work, fair, but Iowa originally provided the software with a clause preventing that.

  • Grasping? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by coldfarnorth (799174) on Monday January 15 2007, @01:03PM (#17616192)
    So, he was asked to write the software for work, he was given a (work) computer to develop the software with, and he was told to do it on the clock. That sounds to me like developing this software was part of his job descripton. If my boss put me in the same situation, I'd say the software was goes to him, no question.

    The fact that he did it off the clock hardly seems like his boss' fault.

    If I had to pick based on that info, well, he'd need to turn over his code. Regardless you can be sure that neither party will make these mistakes again.
  • by Qubit (100461) on Monday January 15 2007, @01:16PM (#17616384) Homepage Journal
    The trooper's program is not FOSS, but I believe that the FSF's advice to Free Software developers who work for universities is appropriate:
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/university.html [gnu.org]

    Whatever you do, raise the issue early -- certainly before the program is half finished. At this point, the university still needs you, so you can play hardball: tell the administration you will finish the program, make it usable, if they have agreed in writing to make it free software...

    Work out the arrangement with the sponsor first, then politely show the university administration that it is not open to renegotiation. They would rather have a contract to develop free software than no contract at all, so they will most likely go along.

    I work for a university, and I have explicitly talked to both the senior programmer and to our boss about developing FOSS on my own time (Do it both in person and over email -- so you have a record of the conversation).
    If you write computer code and want to make sure that your company/university does not try to take it from you, you need to have that conversation. Send an email today!
  • by Animats (122034) on Monday January 15 2007, @01:47PM (#17616824) Homepage

    This is a unionized job. So there's a union contract [wseu-24.org] in effect.

    There's no intellectual property clause in that union contract. But there's an overtime clause, which provides for time and a half for overtime and includes the line "Implementation of alternative work patterns or any variation thereof shall be by mutual agreement between the Employer and the Union." That says "Employer and the Union", not "Employer and the Employee", as is standard in labor contracts. Any special deals on hours have to be done through the union. This prevents the employer from pressuring employees individually. Any special arrangements about working at home have to be cleared with the union, and, of course, that's paid time.

    "Work for Hire" is a very explicit thing in a union job. The company does not own your life outside work.

    Unions - the people who brought you the weekend.

    • by gr8_phk (621180) on Monday January 15 2007, @12:44PM (#17615902)
      Better yet: Make sure you know who is going to own the code before you write it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      No, make sure you write the code on your own computer and completely on your own time if you want to own it without a formal agreement.
      • by h2g2bob (948006) on Monday January 15 2007, @01:12PM (#17616334) Homepage
        Paraphrasing the FSF's recommendations:
        * Write a little bit
        * Go to your boss and say "I'll write the rest if you allow it to be Free Software"
        * Get that in writing
        * Be prepared to say "good luck getting someone else to finish the project" as you walk away
        • by WED Fan (911325) <akahige.trashmail@net> on Monday January 15 2007, @01:41PM (#17616758) Homepage Journal

          Actually, try it like this: (The American Way)

          • Write a little bit
          • Demo it to the boss
          • "I'd like to provide it to the State, free of charge"
          • "I plan on selling it to other police agencies for a fee"
          • "If you don't agree, I'll sell it to other agencies for a fee. Then, when the State wants it, I'll sell you a license."
          • Profit

          God bless MLK, I got the day off.

          I work as a contractor for the DOD. A few years ago, a government employee did that. He was the boss of the shop, developed a cool DB system. Quit. Opened his shop, sold his system. Profit.

    • Yea, seriously. I mean, just look at the end of Revenge of the Nerds 2. The nerds ended up inside an army tank. We don't need a repeat of that.
    • by Baricom (763970) on Monday January 15 2007, @12:56PM (#17616100)
      It's not that simple. Copyright law says a work-for-hire is "a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment." Court cases have determined that an employee that gets time off from other duties, and is provided work space and IT resources by the employer, can be commissioning a work-for-hire, whether a formal agreement exists or not.
      • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Monday January 15 2007, @01:27PM (#17616552)
        It's not that simple. Copyright law says a work-for-hire is "a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment." Court cases have determined that an employee that gets time off from other duties, and is provided work space and IT resources by the employer, can be commissioning a work-for-hire, whether a formal agreement exists or not.

        Nor is it that simple either. A key word here is "scope." One important test is whether or not the employer is in business to create such works. So, a programmer employed by a software house and writing software is probably creating a work for hire. But the police are not in the business of creating software. So, even when provided resources and paid time to do the work, it does not necessarily follow that the result is a work for hire.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Corporations make you sign those agreements just to make sure they're covered. It's legally pretty clear that code you write on work time and on work computers is owned by your employer. These extra agreements cover edge cases and make sure no legal battle can even begin.

      Not having a signed agreement does not make the code his. He was given time from work to write it and used his employer's computer. Therefore the code might be theirs.
    • by paladinwannabe2 (889776) on Monday January 15 2007, @01:11PM (#17616314)
      It looks like the base program comes from Iowa, which gave the program to Wisconsin under the condition that it not be sold commercially. Thus, the trooper cannot sell this program anymore than Microsoft could sell Red Hat Linux without releasing the source code for free. The trooper quite possibly has copyrights to the changes he made, but if so he can only sell the changes he made to someone who already has Iowa's program.

      A fair solution would be the officer gives the rights to his employer, and his employer gives him a nice bonus for overtime work ($10,000-$20,000, depending on the amount of time he spent and the quality of the changes he made). If I were him I'd try to settle out of court.
    • by k12linux (627320) on Monday January 15 2007, @01:30PM (#17616602)
      All sorts of problems with this reasoning:
      1. He didn't write it from scratch. He took code given to WI from IA and modified it. Trying to sell it as his own would make him guilty of copyright violation.
      2. If he doesn't acknowledge any kind of license then he has NO rights to use someone else's source code in "his" software.
      3. There IS a license for the code he based his work on... the one from IA saying it couldn't be sold commercially. Either he accepts that or he has no right to make a derivative work out of it. Regardless, the license wasn't with him it was with the state.
      4. It is not legal (in WI anyhow) to profit or operate a business using public assets (the PC he was given to use.) If he wanted to start his own software business he should have bought his own PC.... and written the code all from scratch.
      5. And as others have mentioned, he was given time (and paid) to work on the software. If he needed more time he should have told someone. This code is "work for hire" programming and decidedly not his.

      He MAY be able to recover pay (even overtime) if he can show his superiors knew or should have known about the time he spent on it. I can't see him getting anything else. He's never going to be making millions off that software.

      He could always destroy the source code instead of giving it to the state... and risk being sent to jail for a computer crime.