I have one question for you... what makes you so sure that I pirate music? Just seems like a strange accusation to make, especially as you claim that you never do that..

So other than the CI industry, can anyone here cite other examples where an employer (yes, I'm assuming that the client is the programmer's employer) does not own the full rights to the source code they paid to have developed.

Even Jec said that his 'Employer' owns the rights to the code he has written.

Edit: Maybe the reason CI programmers get away with this is that most clients probably have no idea what "Source code" means or that it even exists. This probably changes the first time it comes back to bite them in the A**.

I was just at the King of Prussia store buying a CD and they are laying the floor on the magnolia section. Doesn't look like its that big of an area - maybe 1/10 or 1/12 of the total sales floor. Looks like they had two doors in the back wall that I am assuming will lead back to two theater rooms. Grand opening is set for Oct. 8.

Gord,
Your logic that the customer is the employer is flawed. There is a world of difference between the employer/employee relationship and the relationship of a contractor and customer. Unless the employee has a provision in his contract that entitles him partial ownership or benifits for copywrite material or patents then the employer would retain ownership. This happens all the time. We here that GEhas a patent for a new gizmo. The patent is not owned by the engineers that worked on developing the gizmo. It is owned by GE because they paid the engineers to developpe the gizmo.

When you have a CI company to program your system you are paying a contractor to perform a service. In order to program the system he is possibly using modules that he has spent many, many hours developing. Do you pay him for all the programming time that he has spent previously developing those modules. No, you pay him simply for programming your system to make it work. Do you own the source code of the modules that he used to make your system work. In my opinion, no.

You also state that the customer should be able to make copies of the program. I know last year I bought Office XP and I put it on my laptop. Guess what? The hard drive on the laptop died and I had to buy another copy of Office for the new laptop.

I can understand that this can be a big surprise to customers who later need work on their system. If this is an important concern then the customer can pay an additional and higher fee to the programmer for a copy of the source code.

Dave T

When employed as a employee yes the owner of the company owns the source code. It's up to the owner of the company if the code is sold or not to the clients buying time for a programmer to come out and program their system.

When a client contracts a programmer to program their system then its entirely dependant on the agreement that the client and programmer come to before the job starts.

BTW do you own the blueprints of the car you bought? What if your car breaks do you have the right to the blueprints to build another?

Dave T,

So is there no way to provide the customer with that part of the source code which is unique to their system, or would that not provide protection for the programmer's proprietary code (ie. object code or libraries).

So does the higher fee (is this tens, hundreds, or thousands of $$$) for the source code remove the risk of someone stealing the code?.... or what exactly is the purpose of the higher fee.

Actually if you call microsoft you can inform them that office or windows xp is no longer on the previous machine and they will allow you to authorize it for a new machine.

"So does the higher fee (is this tens, hundreds, or thousands of $$$) for the source code remove the risk of someone stealing the code?.... or what exactly is the purpose of the higher fee."

The purpose is that for a higher fee the risk is worth it. You wouldn't take a risk without asking for more would you?

Did I preface that question with jec, I have one question for you? Nope. I'd bet my mortgage that some programmers out there who scream out intellectual property copyright protection own some music that they have not paid for. In my eyes, there's no difference between that and what we're talking about here.

And again, I can make personal backup copies of any other copyrighted material I choose all day long. So what makes control system programming so different?

I can't help thinking that everyone is not quite on the same page here. Just to clear a few things up..

1) Encrypting the source code does not mean that only the original programmer/company can program the AMX or Crestron system for the rest of its life. It means that only the original programmer/company can MODIFY the original programming. Any programmer can come in at a later date and rewrite the code, and frankly, it's extremely rare for a customer to want to use a different programmer and at the same time want to keep the original programming. Generally, when a customer does make the decision to sever all ties to the original programmer it is because they are so dissatisfied with the programming that they are willing to pay whatever it takes to go a different direction. Yes, there are exceptions to this (programmer disappears, company goes out of business), but they are very rare.

2) Programming an AMX or Crestron system is not the same as programming one-way IR/RF remotes. I do not say this to denigrate any Universal/Pronto/Harmony/et cetera programmers, but I think that it is important to understand exactly what we are talking about protecting. We are not talking about an ingenious macro that puts a slight delay between turning the TV on and putting it on input 5, we are talking about several lines of legitimate line code -- whose creation required substantial time, effort, intelligence, and creativity. To the point, while these can be used as remote controls, their true value is the fact that they can transcend this and move in to the realm of smart home technology.

3) Encrypting the source code is not a perfect solution, and I don't think anyone here would claim that it is. However, it is the best solution we have at this point, and again, 99% of the time it is not an issue. Frankly, there is damned little in this industry that I think we can claim runs 100% perfectly for all parties involved. Hell, it's rare, but occasionally we sell a customer a piece of equipment that is defective out of the box. We don't immediately cease all sales because in rare situations someone is inconvenienced, we simply take care of defective equipment to the best of our capabilities when there is an issue.

Just throwing this out there, but in situations where a customer purchased the vast majority of their equipment from someone other than my company, my company has been known to charge more for the installation or refuse the job altogether. I know that my local competition does this, and I believe that most people here who sell consumer electronics do this. The flip side of this is that every time we sell something, we are essentially making it so that the customer has to either deal with us for the installation or pay a premium to have someone else install it. With that said, does anyone here feel guilty about screwing their customer over by effectively locking their customers into dealing with them for installation?

You mean there's hypocrisy in the world of programming, too?! Golly, no! Filthy, filthy programmers..


Actually, I leave a copy of the compiled code with my residential customers. This should not be confused with the source code, as it cannot be modified; and is really only useful in the unlikely event that the customer has a problem with their equipment, swaps it out, and needs a clean copy of the original programming. Definitive backup. Not different from copying a CD for backup purposes is case of damage to the original in any way.

Look, originally I had hoped only to explain the act of encrypting source code, not defend it. When all is said and done, this is just how we do business. Don't like it? Stick with lower-end control systems where this isn't an issue.

I guess I may be minunderstanding source code versus compiled code. It made me step back to hear that you leave a backup behind for your customer.

I do disagree with you previous post about a programmer closing shop or disappearing being rare. I hear about it quite often around here. Not just fly-by-nights, but CEPro top 100 dealers.

So here is my biggest-issue-scenario. Customer has system programmed, two years later, he wants to upgrade his receiver, or add one of those new-fangled BluRay players everyone is talking about. The company who programmed his system is now owned by the state for failure to pay sales tax. Should the customer really be left to foot the bill for a whole new program, when adding a device (while not easy) is obviously a fraction of a whole new writeup? What's the resolution here?

It's frustrating, because there isn't one. But I just don't think the answer is in "locking out" the ability to modify an existing program.

Thanks for take on it..Kinda opened me up to other POV's.

Jec,

If you're the only one that can make changes to the programming of your (previous) customer's system (which is exactly what will happen if only 'you' have the source code), what's to prevent you from charging whatever you like if the customer requires even the smallest of changes? There's not really anything he could do, short of paying someone else to do the whole thing over.... maybe thats what happens in some of the cases you've mentioned where the customer no longer wants anything to with the original programmer.

While 'you' won't budge on the issue (even though in your own words only 1% of the customers would actually go with a different programmer, (not much of a risk)), it seems that there are many others here that will. If the customer is treated fairly, there's not really any reason for him to hire someone else.

Armed with the facts, let the customer decide who they would rather deal with.

Maybe the real reason for not releasing the source code is other than the perceived risk of someone stealing the code (that only you can write), a risk that also seems to diminish (or is worthwhile) if the customer pays a premium.

Your logic here is like "Locking someone up (unless he pays you) for absolutely no reason other than you think he may go shoot somebody".

I never intended with my responses to this thread to pit myself against programmers, honestly I have never had a bit of problems. I still however fail to see the legitimacy of the ownership while in the employment of the customer. That is UNLESS the customer specifically knows that information before work begins and signs off on it. If that is the case then there is no argument to be made.

I have never had to address this issue, but if it did come up I would spell it out clearly for the customer. I don't believe after that conversation it would be an issue since I can't imagine the customer aggreeing to it!

Speaking personally, none. The same goes for software. I'm funny that way. I'm not saying I'm better than you, I just don't play that particular game.

What's your point, asking this? That everyone is a little illegitimate with software use, and since everyone is, it's OK?


If my company went out of business, or I died, the software is still on the server. Customers that needed it could get it, through whoever picked up the ball here.


We do take care of the customer. If the customer is concerned that my company will totally evaporate, leaving them high & dry, they can pay me to establish a software escrow account that will give them the software if we go away.

[Link: google.com]

In my view, the customer does not "deserve" the source code unless I contractually agree to give it to them. (Our contract specifically states that the company keeps sole title to the software.) That source code is a source of continuing revenue for me, and giving it up removes that revenue. If the customer asks for it (some have), they often get it; it's clear that our business relationship is up at that point, and they've paid for the work. I've had a number of clients try to get the source code before they've fully paid for the work; they don't get it.

If you used exactly those words with a "Potential" customer, that's all you would ever have, "Potential" customers.


To the customer this probably is just fine print, he probably has no idea how drastic an effect it can have on him.


Of course, the customer can't really go anywhere else, you're holding all the cards, you can charge whatever you like as long as it's less than having someone else doing it from scratch.


Yes, now the customer would be able to negotiate a reasonable fee for any changes


So in all honesty, do you actually explain to the customer what 'Source code' is, and also that if only 'you' have the source code, that only 'you' can make any changes to the programming of his system, and that if he were to get anyone else to do it, they would have to start from square one.