4 ms·

I'm afraid of the overreaching part... I'd love to rewrite, but i'm having trouble justifying a rewrite of something that works really well as-is. Translating i

by tricky 19y ago

I'm afraid of the overreaching part... I'd love to rewrite, but i'm having trouble justifying a rewrite of something that works really well as-is. Translating it to another language doesn't seem like enough.

pg 19y ago
i'm having trouble justifying a rewrite of something that works really well as-is You're different from a lot of hackers I know. Seriously, though, you probably will eventually rewrite most of it if you turn it into a startup. And often when people rewrite things they're glad afterwards. It will probably take less time than working out a deal with the university, and be much more interesting for you.
run4yourlives 19y ago
Justify it by thinking of the dollars in your pocket. Right now, none, after rewrite, (possibly) many. Sounds like a justification to me. :-)
wheels 19y ago
Just translating would probably leave it as a "derivative work". However, note that licenses like the BSD and MIT licenses came specifically from universities releasing their code under very permissive terms. Perhaps your university can be convinced to do the same.
- pg 19y ago
  How many universities have ever given a startup trouble for making software that was a "derivative work," though? Not one that I know of. In practice it's enough to rewrite under conditions where no one has claim to your IP.
  - wheels 19y ago
    Sure -- a real rewrite would be fine. Porting from, say, C++ to Java probably wouldn't be. (At least I wouldn't found a company on something that potentially shakey.) I think the point that you're getting at, and I wholeheartedly agree, is that if you understand how something works in and out that rewriting it isn't a big challenge.
  - chengmi 19y ago
    It doesn't make sense to sue a startup--it's just not profitable. However, there are instances where universities have appeared to wait for the company or technology to mature before taking legal action. Two examples of this: University of Wisconsin sues Intel for Core 2 Duo patent infringement: http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/07/intel-sued-for-core-2-duo-patent-infringement-by-the-universi/ http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/07/intel-sued-for-core-2-duo... Northeastern University sues Google over Database Architecture: http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/10/google-being-sued-over-database-architecture/ http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/10/google-being-sued-over-... This goes to show that universities aren't always benevolent when it comes to IP. Even if the software is rewritten, there's no guarantee that university lawyers won't accuse you of infringement down the line. Isn't licensing specifically designed to address this issue of IP? What would be a reason not to license the software from the university?
    - pg 19y ago
      Neither of these were universities suing their own students. What would be a reason not to license the software from the university? (a) That the university might have insanely unrealistic ideas about terms, because they're so inexperienced, and (b) that it could take so long to arrange the deal that it would literally be faster to rewrite it.
      - chengmi 19y ago
        Neither of these were universities suing their own students. That's an interesting point, but 1) would the university not have sued if it were a student (or professor) that provided the IP? and 2) then why shouldn't he just use the code outright, especially since he claims to have written it and the university is not likely to care? (a) That the university might have insanely unrealistic ideas about terms, because they're so inexperienced, and (b) that it could take so long to arrange the deal that it would literally be faster to rewrite it. Licensing is there for a purpose--someone paid for him to develop this software, so he has an obligation to that employer to at least ask permission before using the software. Imagine if a startup took seed money from you to develop their software, then turned around to rewrite it for use in another project and thereby sidestepping your 2-10% share. Wouldn't that be unethical? They could even claim both (a) and (b) above.

by tricky 19y ago

pg 19y ago

i'm having trouble justifying a rewrite of something that works really well as-is You're different from a lot of hackers I know. Seriously, though, you probably will eventually rewrite most of it if you turn it into a startup. And often when people rewrite things they're glad afterwards. It will probably take less time than working out a deal with the university, and be much more interesting for you.

run4yourlives 19y ago

Justify it by thinking of the dollars in your pocket. Right now, none, after rewrite, (possibly) many. Sounds like a justification to me. :-)

wheels 19y ago

Just translating would probably leave it as a "derivative work". However, note that licenses like the BSD and MIT licenses came specifically from universities releasing their code under very permissive terms. Perhaps your university can be convinced to do the same.

pg 19y ago
How many universities have ever given a startup trouble for making software that was a "derivative work," though? Not one that I know of. In practice it's enough to rewrite under conditions where no one has claim to your IP.
- wheels 19y ago
  Sure -- a real rewrite would be fine. Porting from, say, C++ to Java probably wouldn't be. (At least I wouldn't found a company on something that potentially shakey.) I think the point that you're getting at, and I wholeheartedly agree, is that if you understand how something works in and out that rewriting it isn't a big challenge.
- chengmi 19y ago
  It doesn't make sense to sue a startup--it's just not profitable. However, there are instances where universities have appeared to wait for the company or technology to mature before taking legal action. Two examples of this: University of Wisconsin sues Intel for Core 2 Duo patent infringement: http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/07/intel-sued-for-core-2-duo-patent-infringement-by-the-universi/ http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/07/intel-sued-for-core-2-duo... Northeastern University sues Google over Database Architecture: http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/10/google-being-sued-over-database-architecture/ http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/10/google-being-sued-over-... This goes to show that universities aren't always benevolent when it comes to IP. Even if the software is rewritten, there's no guarantee that university lawyers won't accuse you of infringement down the line. Isn't licensing specifically designed to address this issue of IP? What would be a reason not to license the software from the university?
  - pg 19y ago
    Neither of these were universities suing their own students. What would be a reason not to license the software from the university? (a) That the university might have insanely unrealistic ideas about terms, because they're so inexperienced, and (b) that it could take so long to arrange the deal that it would literally be faster to rewrite it.
    - chengmi 19y ago
      Neither of these were universities suing their own students. That's an interesting point, but 1) would the university not have sued if it were a student (or professor) that provided the IP? and 2) then why shouldn't he just use the code outright, especially since he claims to have written it and the university is not likely to care? (a) That the university might have insanely unrealistic ideas about terms, because they're so inexperienced, and (b) that it could take so long to arrange the deal that it would literally be faster to rewrite it. Licensing is there for a purpose--someone paid for him to develop this software, so he has an obligation to that employer to at least ask permission before using the software. Imagine if a startup took seed money from you to develop their software, then turned around to rewrite it for use in another project and thereby sidestepping your 2-10% share. Wouldn't that be unethical? They could even claim both (a) and (b) above.