State Trooper Fights For His Source Code 440
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."
That's about the MOST wrong dude to mess with. (Score:1, Insightful)
*Aways* document it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Tracs (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:the take-away point (Score:5, Insightful)
Licensing (Score:4, Insightful)
The article says:
However, it goes on to state:
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.
I'm amazed they're using his software (Score:5, Insightful)
The police force should have never accepted the program without accompanying source code, or (worst case) some sort of license.
-B
The code belongs to his employer. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:He didn't sign any agreement... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Resources (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:the take-away point (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:He didn't sign any agreement... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:The minute they... (Score:3, Insightful)
However, if his employment contract does contain a work for hire clause, then he screwed himself by giving them all that free overtime developing it at home.
Such work for hire clauses are standard in the computer industry. I bet there is a good chance they are not standard in the LE industry since they typically don't produce any copyrightable works.
Well... not all of it. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:the take-away point (Score:5, Insightful)
* 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
Re:Head Asplode... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:the take-away point (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:He didn't sign any agreement... (Score:2, Insightful)
Do cops build their own service pistols?
Do cops build their own patrol cars?
Do cops build their own holding cells?
Building software for policework is no more in the normal scope of employment than the building of any of those others.
Re:the suspense is killing me (Score:3, Insightful)
I expect the GPL-supporters to take the cop's side. GPL supporters are big on copyright, since copyright is the only thing that gives them any leverage to ask a business to align with them politically in order to use the software they indulge themselves in the illusion of offering "freely". If not for copyright, such "freely" given software would be possible to use freely. The same is true in the case of the cop. So, actually, I see quite a bit of suspense: I don't expect the entire community to own up to that.
Some contracts permit private development of stuff and some states enforce the right to do that notwithstanding contractual agreements, but in both cases (contract and state law) where I've seen it, it usually only applies to things done (a) on your own time, (b) using your own facilities, and (c) not directly related to your employment. Otherwise, it risks being a conflict of interest.
I'm not a lawyer, but the common sense of this seems obvious: It's wise to get an admission/agreement in some form from your employer before engaging in any activity that like this. I've had employers who have said "go ahead" and one employer who said "no way, anything you do whatsoever we'll own". In the latter case, the employer who said no didn't end up owning the thing because I didn't end up doing it, of course.
Some people like having a work-supplied PC, but anyone doing this kind of thing should avoid such things. Any hint that the employer contributed to the development sounds like a red flag to me, and that's what it sounds like happened in this article. If you do have a work-supplied computer, using it only for work, and using your own computer for other things seems the wise way to go.
Personally, I think the issue of the "expertise" he acquired by being a cop is not or should not be an issue. We all have knowledge, and knowledge/facts are explicitly exempted from copyright ownership, so the state cannot claim to own it, nor that he improperly used it elsewhere. Absent patenting (which let's all hope doesn't get involved), the only issue that seems material to me here is the code itself and how it was developed.
This particular case sounds messy from the point of view of establishing any kind of precedent. It sounds like an issue of people's personal privacy/property, but if he used facilities supplied by work, that makes it mixed as to principle. I feel bad for the guy, but it sounds like he's made some mistakes.
If I were sorting this out, I'd suggest that the State has no case for taking his software (sounds like a fourth amendment violation) unless he's compounded his set of mistakes by deploying it on machines accessible to them (which would complicate things even more), nor does he probably have a right to market it without their permission if they contributed financially (through use of material facilities). By adopting this posture, both parties have a reason to compromise. Probably the state should pay him some fee or royalty to get past this, if there's a benefit to them to doing so. If an appropriate price point is struck, both will agree, and things will move ahead.
Re:I'm amazed they're using his software (Score:1, Insightful)
Lots of little binary orphans screaming for mommy at the county courthouse
If you ever want to make a business out of selling software to the government, get the money upfront and don't count on license and maintenance fees to support your growth.
Re:Head Asplode... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:I'm amazed they're using his software (Score:1, Insightful)
Whoopdey doo.
Re:Resources (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
The purpose of the law.... (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the best discussions presented on the subject of law is Frederick Bastiat's "The Law"
His book is presented primarily in the form of Natural Law, which is the fundemental principles our country was founded upon. One of my favorite statements from this book follows:
Depending on where you stand on the above, you can either believe the majority of traffic laws "prevent injustice" or not. Personally, I side against most of them.
Re:The purpose of the law.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Head Asplode... (Score:2, Insightful)
And they neglected to tell you that it was against the law, with the understanding that not knowing the law isn't a defense vs breaking the law?
With little more than a signature, the government has turned someone who never intended to be a criminal or lawbreaker - into just that, a criminal. Would you feel no shame breaking that law? Or would you feel it your unwritten write to break it and not be punished?
Sitting in a vehicle on an empty stretch of road, moving XXkph when the sign says YYkph isn't a sin, and it isn't a crime against nature or anything like that. It is a crime because of the above scenario, with the details changed, an increase in scope and a change of punishment. Moving a safe speed (but not the 'correct' speed) on a road makes you a criminal 'because I said so' (said by the same government.)
Re:Head Asplode... (Score:1, Insightful)
Look at what you wrote, and note that you always put "good" in front of "enforcement". The problem is that law enforcement
is a completely subjective thing, and in reality there tends to be about as much bad enforcement as there is good enforcement.
This is because police officers are human beings, just like you and me. They get irritated and they have bad days, just
like you and me. When I have a bad day, I may say bad things to others that I later regret, but when a police officer has
a bad day, they may do things to people that the the person being done unto will be affected by for much longer.
Enforcement of just laws can be very bad.
Re:Head Asplode... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:the take-away point (Score:1, Insightful)
* Boss hits the floor laughing, knowing how many layers of management it would have to get through just to get a note back asking what "Free Software" is.
* Boss knows how long it would take to get approval so tells you that it is now your assignment to go finish the code and of course it isn't Free Software.
* Boss says, thanks I will just finish it myself - and he probably could do that faster than he could get an approval. Even if he had to learn to code first.
Of course this is different if you work for even a large company that actually does things with / for the Free Software community. For example if you are at IBM or Red Hat or something this could work. But a regular old non-tech company? Good luck with that...
Studies... (Score:3, Insightful)
It is in fact well established in the civil engineering literature how to set speed limits so as to make the roads as safe as possible. However, it is also clear that speed limit setting is a matter of politics, not engineering.
I think it should be actionable for speed limits to be set this way (i.e., I think politicians should be liable in court for putting politics above engineering in matters of public safety. "Sovreign immunity" -- the doctrine that politicians have no legal responsibility for their actions -- is a vicious and pernicious doctrine.
Re:Head Asplode... maybe not (Score:1, Insightful)
There is no substitute for competent driving. Pass a single, very simple test and you can drive until you die of old age. No recurrent testing, no serious testing, no feedback. Add to this completely ridiculous enforcement priorities. The police are their own worst PR nightmare. I, like most drivers, have many stories but the point is that poor driving is frequently accepted by and thus partly the blame of the police. I am not just talking about speed. Going 20 MPH too fast on a straight freeway is NOT the same as going 20 MPH over the limit on a local road with kids everywhere, or jumping from lane to lane without signalling and cutting others off, or cutting across three lanes of traffic to make a turn. But what do the police concentrate on? Speed traps! (could revenue have anything to do with it?) Frankly, I am amazed there aren't more wrecks, and 99% of the time speeed has NOTHING to do with it.
Like it or not, speed is a scapegoat and the traps are really just a stealth tax.
Re:Resources (Score:2, Insightful)
That may be your perception of it, but what about the feelings of the person who is forced to say it to you to make you understand what they are saying? By your own thickheadedness you force them to speak to you as if you were a child in order that their point is understood. How obnoxious must you have been yourself in order to force them to take undertake such a step?
If someone tells you that something "went bye bye" they are trying to communicate to you in the most simple terms possible (so that your tiny, little, undeveloped mind will comprehend) that Elvis has left the building, he's jumped the shark, he's pinin' for the fjords, he's kicked the bucket, pushin' up daisies, etc., etc. in spite of your refusal to accept what is plain and obvious to anyone with the slightest lick of sense.
Re:I'm amazed they're using his software (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Head Asplode... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Federal Law (Score:3, Insightful)
His employer gave him time and equipment to create a ticket writing system... However because he was passionate about his work (like many of you may be) he took his work home and continued to work on it on off hours to meet his deadlines.
There was his mistake. He should have left his work at work and instead went home and worked on a seperate problem that they needed to solve. Then he could have gone in and said "Hey, see how great this ticket system is I built you on your time... check out this tool I wrote on my own time... would you like to buy it for 10K?"
Who is to say they wouldn't try to claim he wrote the second program on work time as well and try to just take control of it, but at least he'd have a leg to stand on.
I guess we should all learn lesson from this. He should have gone to a lawyer and had them draw up a contract that said that he was going to develop a system for writing tickets and that he'd be supplying this system to the state police department free of charge as an even pro bono exchange for being given time and and resources to work on it, but that once the system was functional he'd keep control of it and be capable of selling it commerically.
Worse case, they'd just say no in which case they'd probably have to go out and bid on a system and he'd be able to then resubmit the contract with a bid that's cheaper than everybody elses.
Re:Resources (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dude, come on ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Humans aren't machines (Score:3, Insightful)
On engineering terms it would be fine for some roads in the middle of towns to be set at 100mph because many cars are engineered well enough to keep on those roads and turn off those roads under control going up to that speed.
But people aren't machines. Small children will run after their ball into the road, and 100mph cars and small children don't mix. So despite what the cars and roads are technically capable of, people aren't capable of reaching such engineering standards.
Speed limits out of town - well same issue - you as a healthy fit highly trained driver in your brand new Porsche might be able to do 150mph down a desert road but a little old guy in his old car might completely freak out if you drive at that speed right up to him. He might make a mistake because he is stressed by your high speed driving - pull in front of you, slam the brakes on, drive off the road etc. So a road accident might happen even though you are confident in your capacity.
Of course speed limits are about people, and not engineering. Speed limits are about making the road safe for the weakest and most vulnerable of legitimate road users, not about the strongest and most able. Machinery has surpassed our capacities a long time ago.