edhew@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew) (03/03/91)
I'm posting this for my brother who does not have USENET news access.
Please email any comments or replies directly to him:
fulko@fkhew.uucp
.....uunet!attcan!lsuc!maccs!fkhew!fulko
.....uunet!watmath!maccs!fkhew!fulko
--
Ed. A. Hew <edhew@xenitec.on.ca>, XeniTec Consulting Services
or if you're really stuck: ..!{watmath|lsuc}!xenitec!eah
========================= Snip here =============================
Thank you to those of you who took the time out to respond to my call
for opinions on the issue of personal recognition in startup banner of
a piece of software. (To those of you who didn't read it the first time,
it appears again at the end of this message.)
I found it quite interesting that there are a WIDE variety of opinions
out there, but that most companies DO NOT appear to have a policy.
In response to a request from one of the respondants, I hearby forward
a summary (edited of course) of the responses I have received.
(The summary appears at this time since its been a week (more by now actually)
since I received the last response, and I suspect that the rest of the
world has now timed out my posting and has deleted it.)
=================================================================
In total, I received 16 responses, from a variety of people.
The spread went from some manufactures of instruments, educational
institutions, and people from small software houses.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
When working on Multics,...
the programmers name appears in the source...
to enable other people to find out who did what to the software....
"These comments were ONLY in the source and not in pushed through into
the executable, and definitely not displayed to the user."
1/ ...you could find out who mucked with the program before...
2/ ...people were more careful when they knew their names appeared...
3/ ...gave a reputation with the customer, which was nice...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
...a tiny minicomputer software company and we did not put our names anywhere.
...a small company (PC software) and we did not put our names in the
program but we did put them in the manual and technical presentations.
...a tiny company (PC software) and we get our names on the banner.
to get personal recognition...is the primary reason to allow it.
re: professionalism
It depends on whether you view the individuals contribution as significant.
I decry the current corporate attitude of anonymity---I believe that people
write software, people answer phones, people write manuals, people take
orders, and that it is the people that affect the quality, not some corporate
non-entity. Thus, I believe that people should get the credit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
...Games almost always have the creator's name.
...Macintosh applications include names in the "about" section.
...Microsoft Windows apps tend to follow the same trend.
...Business software (Foxbase, Lotus, etc) does not include any names.
...The credit screen for Microsoft Windows 3.0 is brought up through
a very obscure key sequence (You'd never find it by accident).
It includes creators, testers, qa, artwork, etc. It is a long list.
It is also in the format, jimb, johnq, lisan. In other words,
no last names, only an initial.
personal opinion - if one or two people have 80 or 90% of the design work,
they might get credit. Otherwise keep it anonymous.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I used to put "Author:" into the source for code I wrote but no longer do.
1) Code I wrote 10 years ago hardly resembles anything I would write today.
I might be proud of the general design of the program, but would rather
forget that I wrote the mess that implements it.
2) Many of the programs I wrote years ago have been modified, updated,
rewritten, and improved so much that very little of the original code
remains. It's almost embarrassing to see my name there when 90% of it
was written by other anonymous people.
If the owner of the source were legally bound to retain my name as "author"
and to display it to the users, I think it would be unpleasant for both of us.
"Based on an idea by", or "Original concept by", might be ok, but only if the
original program really was a unique idea and not simply an implementation of
someone else's requirements or a new implementation of an existing program.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
...in the source code to aid the future maintainer...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
...software should *not* print a banner message...
In the case of Unix-style programs that are intended for use as filters,
any sort of banner is a real annoyance when the output of one program is
to be processed by the input of another.
...In the case of self-contained interactive programs the banner simply
prevents the user from doing anything interesting or useful with the
program while the banner is displayed...I dislike anything that wastes
my time.
...my name appears in source files for things I write...for the maintainers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
...We put our names in the source code, and as a contact name in release notes.
It never appears any place that a customer would see it during execution.
...My personal opinions agree with this policy, for corporate software.
If you were writing games and such, that's a bit different,
but I would tend towards the same system.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Nope. Nor do we include a plaque attached to hardware we design with
the names of contributing engineers engraved upon it.
Although, I've seen some auto company ads recently showing that their
high-tier products are signed by the craftsmen who build them. Perhaps
we should similarly honor our production line workers."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
...six people on the project, five programmers and one inteface designer.
All are credited in the "About Box".
...Many other companies follow this practice including Claris but with the
notable exceptions of Microsoft and other large, conservative, software
houses.
"I don't think it is essential for software quality but it does add incentive
to do things right not just to get them done."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Absolutely not. We permit nothing that implies anthing other than a
corporate entity."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"It always impressed me as being a bit childish, but "what the hey", maybe I
just felt jealous 'cause I wasn't working at a place where I could get away
with something like that."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Legal point: Under subsection 12(1) of the Canadian Copyright Act, in general
the author is first owner of the copyright. There are two exceptions:
commissioned works, and works created by an employee in the course of their
employment. In these cases, the commissioner/employee is first owner of the
copyright. (These provisions are subsections 12(2) and 12(3), respectively).
Subsection 12(4) provides that any agreement to the contrary must be in writing."
...So yes, in general the company has the rights to the software, but..!
"Subsection 12(7) provides for *Moral rights* of the author, which may *not*
be assigned, although they may be waived. In no case is this waiver implicit.
Since I have never agreed to waive my moral rights to any software I have
written, I still have all these rights in code other people are selling.
These rights include the right not to have the work defaced (I don't have the
exact wording here, but it's something about to the detriment of the author's
reputation).
Most significantly, they also include the right to have your name associated
with the work, or not associated if you prefer. Thus, I could sue, with every
expectation of success, past employers for credit for the software I
contributed to. This does not mandate being in the startup screen, but
somewhere reasonable, such as the manual, a help screen, or an About... menu
item.
As a rule, European countries have stronger moral rights for authors and the
U.S. has weaker. However, when the U.S. joined the Berne convention, some
preliminary reports I heard described expanded moral rights including, most
notably, the right not to have uncompleted work (in the opinion of the author!)
published.
...what a great defense against the pressure to ship unfinished work!
Well, that's Canadian law - If I produce a copyrightable work (and presumably
the company would argue the program in general is copyrightable), I can
require credit. I don't think testers produce that, although the manual
writer obviously does. But a sensible company would give everyone credit to
keep peace.
I've seen, on Apple software, credit given to the local Pizza delivery joint,
Zippy the pinhead, and various rock groups.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Most large companies appear to discourage this kind of stuff. But it's
surprising how often the programmers manage to sneak in a screen/window with
their own names. The software for the Amiga is full of it, even though
Commodore actively discourages it (or so I'm told). There are even hidden
screens in Microsoft Windows 3.0. If the programmers want their names on a
screen, they'll get it. And the laugher will usually be on their side.
My personal opinion is to allow it, as long as it is done tastefully.
Most Mac software are reasonably good on this, hiding the info in the
'About ...' window, or even as an optional window behind that. If not
in the software itself, then in the documentation somewhere.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Only games writers generally get their names credited. I think producers of
software think of games as creative, while applications and utilities seem
more utilitarian. Designers don't sign their names on automobiles and
aircraft, but they do sign paintings and sculptures. The basic creativity
of the process is not the issue, it is the perception of the creativity of
the finished product that determines whether it is uniquely associated with
a designer's name or not.
...it isn't a good idea for your name to be on the title screen because...
1. You may go on to another job within the company. You will suddenly
find this program of which you were once so proud as a millstone
around your neck. If your name is all over it, customers and
programmers will be in your office all the time preventing you from
doing fun creative work by asking endless questions about details
that are (1) in the manual (2) obscured in your memory by the mists
of time (3) added by other people after you left the project (4)
obscure interactions you neven envisioned.
2. You may not wish customers to know your name. There are people who
will consider you as a perfect alternative to the manual. They will
call you with stupid questions at all hours of the day or night.
These people have endless hours to spend helping you understand all
the things they think are weak about your program, while yo would
rather be doing something productive. The more successful your
program is, the more of these you will accumulate. Your company
probably has a support department full of people trying to save you
from this, but if you really want to shortcircuit them, go ahead.
3. Reputations are easier to destroy than to create. What if your
program has an obscure bug that begins to trash hard disks on the
new and pupular FooBar 432? What if someone gets your master disk
infected with a virus and everybody remembers your name as the
stupid jerk that gave them the dreaded Bit-Bucket-Virus.
4. Who wrote Lotus 1-2-3? Microsoft C 5.0? Finder? How many authors
of the most popular software do you know by name? Chances are, it
doesn't matter at all. Chances are neither you nor your boss would
know a famous programmer if he wandered up and asked for any spare
change you might have.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
So there you have it... my tally was:
YES NO
=== ==
in source code: 4 5
in documentation: 3 5
in banner/"about..." screen 6 9
The no's appear to have it by a vote of 3 to 2. But a lot of people
refered to Apple/Amiga/MS Windows applications 'about...' screen.
Have I reached a conclusion?
If we here at Westinghouse reach a decision, I'll let you know.
Fulko Hew, (416) 528-8811 x 6225
Engineering Designer,
Innovation & Integration Group, ...!maccs!fkhew!fulko
Information Services Division,
Westinghouse Canada Inc.
The original RFC was as follows:
========================= Snip here =============================
I'm looking for answers from both the legal mind, and those other companies
out there that write software for a living, both stand alone software ie. PC
software, and software for embedded systems. ie. the dashboard of your Buick.
I'm wondering what policies other companies have with respect to having
an individuals name (the person that wrote the software) on the banner message
that appears when a piece of software starts.
Like most companies, when an employee writes a program, the employee does not
own the software, but the company does. The author, and therefore the
patent/copywrite holder is the company. The question is, do you, the other
companies out there, allow the designer/implementor to put a message on the
screen with their name on it?
ie. The ABC spreadsheet program
(c) 1991 Software Wigets Inc.
Written by: Joe Blow
On the side for allowing it:
1/ The creator gets personal recognition,
and therefore a reputation (hopefully a good one).
A good ego boost.
On the down side:
1/ The company may want all customer enquiries to only go through a service
or sales group, and not to the creator. (too many costly interuptions)
2/ After all, the company owns the software and not the individual.
3/ In most circumstances, the company will want to maintain liability, in
the case that something goes wrong with the program. Professional
engineers, otherwise, would have to assume liability. If their name
is visable, could it not create a problem?
4/ OK, so you let the guy put his name on the software.
What happens if it is a group work?
What about the designer, the tester, the ... they all had valuable input
to the the program. What about the guy who fixed the bugs, or makes
version 2? Does he delete all names before him, or just add his to the
growing list. Where does it stop?
5/ Its not professional ;-| ????
My personal opinion:
The individual's name should not appear on the banner.
Buried in the executable... maybe.
In the source code... only if its freeware, or if its never distributed.
What is the rest of the worlds opinion?
Please send your comments to me:
Fulko Hew, (416) 528-8811 x 6225
Engineering Designer,
Innovation & Integration Group, ...!maccs!fkhew!fulko
Information Services Division,
Westinghouse Canada Inc.@usaos.uucp (03/03/91)
Xref: xenitec comp.misc:8873 misc.legal:14031 can.general:5000 uw.general:2540 sco.opendesktop:596
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 91 02:36:10 GMT
Message-ID: <1991Mar03.023610.2696@xenitec.on.ca>
Followup-To: comp.misc
Keywords: copywrite, recognition, author, program.
I'm posting this for my brother who does not have USENET news access.
Please email any comments or replies directly to him:
fulko@fkhew.uucp
.....uunet!attcan!lsuc!maccs!fkhew!fulko
.....uunet!watmath!maccs!fkhew!fulko
--
Ed. A. Hew <edhew@xenitec.on.ca>, XeniTec Consulting Services
or if you're really stuck: ..!{watmath|lsuc}!xenitec!eah
========================= Snip here =============================
Thank you to those of you who took the time out to respond to my call
for opinions on the issue of personal recognition in startup banner of
a piece of software. (To those of you who didn't read it the first time,
it appears again at the end of this message.)
I found it quite interesting that there are a WIDE variety of opinions
out there, but that most companies DO NOT appear to have a policy.
In response to a request from one of the respondants, I hearby forward
a summary (edited of course) of the responses I have received.
(The summary appears at this time since its been a week (more by now actually)
since I received the last response, and I suspect that the rest of the
world has now timed out my posting and has deleted it.)
=================================================================
In total, I received 16 responses, from a variety of people.
The spread went from some manufactures of instruments, educational
institutions, and people from small software houses.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
When working on Multics,...
the programmers name appears in the source...
to enable other people to find out who did what to the software....
"These comments were ONLY in the source and not in pushed through into
the executable, and definitely not displayed to the user."
1/ ...you could find out who mucked with the program before...
2/ ...people were more careful when they knew their names appeared...
3/ ...gave a reputation with the customer, which was nice...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
...a tiny minicomputer software company and we did not put our names anywhere.
...a small company (PC software) and we did not put our names in the
program but we did put them in the manual and technical presentations.
...a tiny company (PC software) and we get our names on the banner.
to get personal recognition...is the primary reason to allow it.
re: professionalism
It depends on whether you view the individuals contribution as significant.
I decry the current corporate attitude of anonymity---I believe that people
write software, people answer phones, people write manuals, people take
orders, and that it is the people that affect the quality, not some corporate
non-entity. Thus, I believe that people should get the credit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
...Games almost always have the creator's name.
...Macintosh applications include names in the "about" section.
...Microsoft Windows apps tend to follow the same trend.
...Business software (Foxbase, Lotus, etc) does not include any names.
...The credit screen for Microsoft Windows 3.0 is brought up through
a very obscure key sequence (You'd never find it by accident).
It includes creators, testers, qa, artwork, etc. It is a long list.
It is also in the format, jimb, johnq, lisan. In other words,
no last names, only an initial.
personal opinion - if one or two people have 80 or 90% of the design work,
they might get credit. Otherwise keep it anonymous.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I used to put "Author:" into the source for code I wrote but no longer do.
1) Code I wrote 10 years ago hardly resembles anything I would write today.
I might be proud of the general design of the program, but would rather
forget that I wrote the mess that implements it.
2) Many of the programs I wrote years ago have been modified, updated,
rewritten, and improved so much that very little of the original code
remains. It's almost embarrassing to see my name there when 90% of it
was written by other anonymous people.
If the owner of the source were legally bound to retain my name as "author"
and to display it to the users, I think it would be unpleasant for both of us.
"Based on an idea by", or "Original concept by", might be ok, but only if the
original program really was a unique idea and not simply an implementation of
someone else's requirements or a new implementation of an existing program.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
...in the source code to aid the future maintainer...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
...software should *not* print a banner message...
In the case of Unix-style programs that are intended for use as filters,
any sort of banner is a real annoyance when the output of one program is
to be processed by the input of another.
...In the case of self-contained interactive programs the banner simply
prevents the user from doing anything interesting or useful with the
program while the banner is displayed...I dislike anything that wastes
my time.
...my name appears in source files for things I write...for the maintainers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
...We put our names in the source code, and as a contact name in release notes.
It never appears any place that a customer would see it during execution.
...My personal opinions agree with this policy, for corporate software.
If you were writing games and such, that's a bit different,
but I would tend towards the same system.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Nope. Nor do we include a plaque attached to hardware we design with
the names of contributing engineers engraved upon it.
Although, I've seen some auto company ads recently showing that their
high-tier products are signed by the craftsmen who build them. Perhaps
we should similarly honor our production line workers."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
...six people on the project, five programmers and one inteface designer.
All are credited in the "About Box".
...Many other companies follow this practice including Claris but with the
notable exceptions of Microsoft and other large, conservative, software
houses.
"I don't think it is essential for software quality but it does add incentive
to do things right not just to get them done."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Absolutely not. We permit nothing that implies anthing other than a
corporate entity."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"It always impressed me as being a bit childish, but "what the hey", maybe I
just felt jealous 'cause I wasn't working at a place where I could get away
with something like that."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Legal point: Under subsection 12(1) of the Canadian Copyright Act, in general
the author is first owner of the copyright. There are two exceptions:
commissioned works, and works created by an employee in the course of their
employment. In these cases, the commissioner/employee is first owner of the
copyright. (These provisions are subsections 12(2) and 12(3), respectively).
Subsection 12(4) provides that any agreement to the contrary must be in writing."
...So yes, in general the company has the rights to the software, but..!
"Subsection 12(7) provides for *Moral rights* of the author, which may *not*
be assigned, although they may be waived. In no case is this waiver implicit.
Since I have never agreed to waive my moral rights to any software I have
written, I still have all these rights in code other people are selling.
These rights include the right not to have the work defaced (I don't have the
exact wording here, but it's something about to the detriment of the author's
reputation).
Most significantly, they also include the right to have your name associated
with the work, or not associated if you prefer. Thus, I could sue, with every
expectation of success, past employers for credit for the software I
contributed to. This does not mandate being in the startup screen, but
somewhere reasonable, such as the manual, a help screen, or an About... menu
item.
As a rule, European countries have stronger moral rights for authors and the
U.S. has weaker. However, when the U.S. joined the Berne convention, some
preliminary reports I heard described expanded moral rights including, most
notably, the right not to have uncompleted work (in the opinion of the author!)
published.
...what a great defense against the pressure to ship unfinished work!
Well, that's Canadian law - If I produce a copyrightable work (and presumably
the company would argue the program in general is copyrightable), I can
require credit. I don't think testers produce that, although the manual
writer obviously does. But a sensible company would give everyone credit to
keep peace.
I've seen, on Apple software, credit given to the local Pizza delivery joint,
Zippy the pinhead, and various rock groups.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Most large companies appear to discourage this kind of stuff. But it's
surprising how often the programmers manage to sneak in a screen/window with
their own names. The software for the Amiga is full of it, even though
Commodore actively discourages it (or so I'm told). There are even hidden
screens in Microsoft Windows 3.0. If the programmers want their names on a
screen, they'll get it. And the laugher will usually be on their side.
My personal opinion is to allow it, as long as it is done tastefully.
Most Mac software are reasonably good on this, hiding the info in the
'About ...' window, or even as an optional window behind that. If not
in the software itself, then in the documentation somewhere.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Only games writers generally get their names credited. I think producers of
software think of games as creative, while applications and utilities seem
more utilitarian. Designers don't sign their names on automobiles and
aircraft, but they do sign paintings and sculptures. The basic creativity
of the process is not the issue, it is the perception of the creativity of
the finished product that determines whether it is uniquely associated with
a designer's name or not.
...it isn't a good idea for your name to be on the title screen because...
1. You may go on to another job within the company. You will suddenly
find this program of which you were once so proud as a millstone
around your neck. If your name is all over it, customers and
programmers will be in your office all the time preventing you from
doing fun creative work by asking endless questions about details
that are (1) in the manual (2) obscured in your memory by the mists
of time (3) added by other people after you left the project (4)
obscure interactions you neven envisioned.
2. You may not wish customers to know your name. There are people who
will consider you as a perfect alternative to the manual. They will
call you with stupid questions at all hours of the day or night.
These people have endless hours to spend helping you understand all
the things they think are weak about your program, while yo would
rather be doing something productive. The more successful your
program is, the more of these you will accumulate. Your company
probably has a support department full of people trying to save you
from this, but if you really want to shortcircuit them, go ahead.
3. Reputations are easier to destroy than to create. What if your
program has an obscure bug that begins to trash hard disks on the
new and pupular FooBar 432? What if someone gets your master disk
infected with a virus and everybody remembers your name as the
stupid jerk that gave them the dreaded Bit-Bucket-Virus.
4. Who wrote Lotus 1-2-3? Microsoft C 5.0? Finder? How many authors
of the most popular software do you know by name? Chances are, it
doesn't matter at all. Chances are neither you nor your boss would
know a famous programmer if he wandered up and asked for any spare
change you might have.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
So there you have it... my tally was:
YES NO
=== ==
in source code: 4 5
in documentation: 3 5
in banner/"about..." screen 6 9
The no's appear to have it by a vote of 3 to 2. But a lot of people
refered to Apple/Amiga/MS Windows applications 'about...' screen.
Have I reached a conclusion?
If we here at Westinghouse reach a decision, I'll let you know.
Fulko Hew, (416) 528-8811 x 6225
Engineering Designer,
Innovation & Integration Group, ...!maccs!fkhew!fulko
Information Services Division,
Westinghouse Canada Inc.
The original RFC was as follows:
========================= Snip here =============================
I'm looking for answers from both the legal mind, and those other companies
out there that write software for a living, both stand alone software ie. PC
software, and software for embedded systems. ie. the dashboard of your Buick.
I'm wondering what policies other companies have with respect to having
an individuals name (the person that wrote the software) on the banner message
that appears when a piece of software starts.
Like most companies, when an employee writes a program, the employee does not
own the software, but the company does. The author, and therefore the
patent/copywrite holder is the company. The question is, do you, the other
companies out there, allow the designer/implementor to put a message on the
screen with their name on it?
ie. The ABC spreadsheet program
(c) 1991 Software Wigets Inc.
Written by: Joe Blow
On the side for allowing it:
1/ The creator gets personal recognition,
and therefore a reputation (hopefully a good one).
A good ego boost.
On the down side:
1/ The company may want all customer enquiries to only go through a service
or sales group, and not to the creator. (too many costly interuptions)
2/ After all, the company owns the software and not the individual.
3/ In most circumstances, the company will want to maintain liability, in
the case that something goes wrong with the program. Professional
engineers, otherwise, would have to assume liability. If their name
is visable, could it not create a problem?
4/ OK, so you let the guy put his name on the software.
What happens if it is a group work?
What about the designer, the tester, the ... they all had valuable input
to the the program. What about the guy who fixed the bugs, or makes
version 2? Does he delete all names before him, or just add his to the
growing list. Where does it stop?
5/ Its not professional ;-| ????
My personal opinion:
The individual's name should not appear on the banner.
Buried in the executable... maybe.
In the source code... only if its freeware, or if its never distributed.
What is the rest of the worlds opinion?
Please send your comments to me:
Fulko Hew, (416) 528-8811 x 6225
Engineering Designer,
Innovation & Integration Group, ...!maccs!fkhew!fulko
Information Services Division,
Westinghouse Canada Inc.