SyntaxBomb - Indie Coders

Last answer to you REMI. I won't use their code or framework in my own projects. POINT.

And what I develop for them is theirs. POINT.

Don't question my loyalty to the company I am employed to.

Ok...
i was just asking generally, not insinuating anything about you.
thanks

Quote from: MikeHart on October 03, 2021, 19:36:29
Don't question my loyalty to the company I am employed to.

Did not see RemiD questioning your loyality (too).

I often think of the same stuff: people code for a company and eg come to conclusions (idea wise). Then at home - two years after the project is completed - they need to come up with a similar solution (so facing the same problem). Then their mind finds a solution (which ... ressembles the one they did 2 yrs ago, maybe not remembering exactly about it). But this time they have the solution "right at hand". They know how to approach the problem and write some code.

At the end the code is similar to the one the wrote in the past. The shorter the code the more similar it will be -- nonetheless the "basic approach" will be the same (maybe evolved a bit as new knowledge was gained over the 2 yrs).

Yet at the end you wrote code which you thought about (and got paid for thinking about!) in the past.


Of course very specific implementation code (so specific to a game or some company specific library) wont be affected. But more these "generic approaches" will be affected. Think of smart asset management, nifty ways to utilize a third party lib nobody "used this way before".


BUT if you think about this stuff - then .... isnt this just similar to "experience" you gain? Nobody will blame you for "but this experience you gained because of US so you cannot use it for others advantages". If I learn to "sum up numbers" in a company, then I can benefit from it in another company - can't I? So at the end the "exclusiveness" of knowledge matters, or the "advantage over others". The more "basic knowledge" it is, the less risky it is to "do it again" for yourself or a different company.




For myself I did it this way: I coded frameworks/libs with "MIT"-Licence. When extending them for work, all would benefit (and I got paid). I did not discuss them overly strong. Explained that I wrote part of it "FOSS" and would keep it that way. I worked for a research facility (now for university) so I think they kinda appreciate a FOSS approach. Yet some stuff is "closed source" (where our "magic" happens) but this is ... very problem specific and not of much use to be open sourced. At the end this results in some framework/library code which I can always "extend from" but which also allows my "private" (read "games") to benefit from. And yes, often the knowledge collected there is non-academic but "time saving" stuff. Next to learn bit by bit on how to approach stuff in a "better way" - with this last point summarizing well what I wrote above: the knowledge you gain during working for someone is not always "protectable".
A publisher wont blame you for having learnt how to write books just because you wrote 5 for them.



@ Mike
Have fun and I wish you the best for not struggling with almost-non-solveable issues. May the code be with you.


bye
Ron

Quote from: RemiD on October 03, 2021, 13:43:07
what if you use a GUI system, menu system, controls configuration procedures, graphics effect procedures, collisions / physics system, which can be used in many others projects ?

That depends on the contract, though I don't think it would be fair to ask for exclusivity retroactively. 
So it would be fair if any generic libraries that Mike has coded in the past, he could use them in this new exclusive project for this client but he'll still own them, and his client will own that new copy of the libraries. 
If Mike makes any modifications on the copy (for instance, to interface with the existing codebase that the client's project has), the modified copy belongs only to the client. The original libraries Mike created will remain Mike's and he can use them on other projects as he did with this one, because they existed before the contract was signed. 

Kryzon, I didn't say that CX is used by that company. I said that I can work further on CX and publish it.

Quote
For myself I did it this way: I coded frameworks/libs with "MIT"-Licence. When extending them for work, all would benefit (and I got paid). I did not discuss them overly strong. Explained that I wrote part of it "FOSS" and would keep it that way. I worked for a research facility (now for university) so I think they kinda appreciate a FOSS approach. Yet some stuff is "closed source" (where our "magic" happens) but this is ... very problem specific and not of much use to be open sourced.

Quote
That depends on the contract, though I don't think it would be fair to ask for exclusivity retroactively. 
So it would be fair if any generic libraries that Mike has coded in the past, he could use them in this new exclusive project for this client but he'll still own them, and his client will own that new copy of the libraries. 
If Mike makes any modifications on the copy (for instance, to interface with the existing codebase that the client's project has), the modified copy belongs only to the client. The original libraries Mike created will remain Mike's and he can use them on other projects as he did with this one, because they existed before the contract was signed.

thanks for these clarifications.


i have already encountered this problem in the past, and did not know how to deal with it :
i have many procedures and graphics already made (by me, for my projects), and a client wants to hire me to create something for him, and to achieve this, i can use several of my existing procedures and graphics, and of course adapt them for the goal and create others specific procedures and graphics only used in the client's project.

i have no problem to give the client all the rights to use / mod / sell the procedures and graphics, but i have a problem if the client wants to forbid the reuse of the procedures and graphics which are not specific to his project and could be reused in many others projects.

that's why i asked...

and that's why i think it is a good idea to post code examples, reusable procedures, free on forums (to prevent copyright trolls)

Quote from: MikeHart on October 04, 2021, 04:32:13
Kryzon, I didn't say that CX is used by that company. I said that I can work further on CX and publish it.

Sorry, I misunderstood you. I edited my post now.

No problem. My Monkey X experience got me that job.

Regarding existing projects of mine, I secured in my contract that I am allowed to work on them and publish them at will. That was important to me.