“SA Software Industry in Crisis”

I am just wondering what the effect of this will be on the opensource software concept. I really see it as a great opportunity for development in our country, but this has the possibility of flooring even that.
 
Where can we find some actual details instead of the ranting and raving of some attorney?

What are the true details of this case?
 
I think we will have to wait and see what impact this will really have. It will have interesting effects on co-sponsored projects though where one party brings the business knoledge to the table and the other party the technical skills.
 
If you spec a system it should be your system. The intellectual rights to the system should not be with the person that merely took the spec and wrote the software. That's like an author dictating a book while having it typed by a typist which in turn now owns the book because he/she typed it. I'm in software development and we do our own specs so therefore own the software.
 
noxibox said:
Where can we find some actual details instead of the ranting and raving of some attorney?

What are the true details of this case?
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
I am confused as to how this will ruin the SA software industry. If someone (some USA company for example) developed the specs, and outsourced it to an SA company, what would be the problem? It makes sense that the american company would own it, they paid for it after all
 
noxibox said:
Where can we find some actual details instead of the ranting and raving of some attorney?

What are the true details of this case?
Click to expand...


That is exactly my sentiment on this issue when it comes to attorneys lobbying parties into action!

I do believe that when I develop software for an individual or company according to their specification them that software becomes their property because is was their idea in the first place but when I conceive an idea and develop the software then I am the owner.

Geez now I am peeved!
 
Hmm, I think Mr Buys is more interested in some publicity rather than the software industry.

A bricklayer does not own the house he built, neither does a welder own the ship he built.

I certainly don't own the debit order system I wrote for Old Mutual, and the guys who wrote MS Office does not own that either.

As a programmer with 20 years experience I understand (and agree with) the fact that my "employer" own copyright under most circumstances.
 
I would also like to know the details of this case. Where can I get more details? I havnt seen anything about it on ITWEB.
 
Psykro, thanks for that link.

Unusually sensationalist article from myadsl... doesn't appear to be anything close to reality after reading that link.

Key is - sort out your contracts before you write a line of code. Hardly the end of the world as we know it...
 
A load of carp, If I pay a dev house to build something for me I own the product since I paid them to build it, they can prolly change the code to create something better and sell me the upgrade but then the new code/priduct is owned by them.
 
I don't get it .... what ruling ?
The South African Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein decided to depart from years of international agreement on the rules governing ownership of software and make South Africa one of only two countries in the world where a person or company that developed a software application does not own it.
Click to expand...
Hu ?
I need to explain this to others but I don't actually understand what happened.
 
Seems more complicated than what Cara Christian implies. It is the age old question of if you hire someone to write a program for you do you own the copywrite to the software or does the person. It is very common that the company which commissions the software owns it and not the individual developer. I think Cara Christian's article is bit over the top. From the link by Psykro, it seems the court decided that whoever controls the software development process was actually the owner.
 
You want to build a house, so you commission a person to draw up the plans, and an engineer or two to help to get the plans approved, and then you get builders to build it, and then you still own it.

This new ruling is like all cool and well until you add an architect into the above situation. The architect in fact owns the house cos the architect is the designer+creator+implementor of the house.

Am I reading this correct ?
 
stoke : No, the person that commission the house to be built (you) owns it
 
I think the architect analogy is not ideal for this case because the architect does have IP rights over his design at least for a certain period of time.

To put it in simple terms: You own the land, but the architect owns the design. If you decide to go ahead and build the house according to the architect's design then you pay him for his services. Once you have paid the architect then his design becomes yours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X