HTML5: mixed signals

[Richmond Mathewson]

Ooer . . . and how, pray tell, does one tease out what one learnt in one 
loaction from what one learnt in another?

I was teaching some kiddos 2 weeks agao and showed one of them a stack 
of mine; and he said, "That's a silly
way to do that." and then showed me what he thougth was a better way to 
do it.
His way wasn't better, it was about as silly as my method; BUT his 
pointing the problem out made me see that it was silly and a way to
do the thing I wanted to do in a way that wasn't silly.

OK, OK, I bought him an ice-cream

Richmond.

On 7/28/17 9:32 pm, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:
> On 2017-07-28 19:49, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode wrote:
>> It turns out that teachers who make software at home, in their own
>> time, do NOT own the copyright to their work if they are under
>> contract to schools
>> unless this has been explicitly "sorted out" in advance . . .
>>
>> a situation that, frankly, stinks, especially as this is NOT during a
>> period of time for which you are being paid for by your employer.
>
> This does sound familiar - it is probably worth everyone checking the 
> fine detail of their contracts in this regard.
>
> I honestly can't remember if (things done at home are your employers 
> too) that is a presumption of contract/IP law (i.e. doesn't require 
> explicit wording in a contract); or whether it is something which has 
> to be explicitly enumerated.
>
> The issue here is actually one of IP and knowledge-in-environment. 
> Let's say you have a programmer which is working for a company which 
> is doing really bleeding-edge stuff X. The only reason that programmer 
> knows anything about X is because he is working for that company. 
> Programmer goes home, and starts working on stuff in their own time 
> using the knowledge they have about X (or have learnt about X due to 
> exposure). The company has to protect itself - and in this case, the 
> company would be seen to own the copyright on what the programmer has 
> done (as far as I understand it).
>
> The reason is simple. The programmer is using knowledge and ideas at 
> home which he did not develop himself - he is using the IP of the 
> company of which he is part of to do them. He does not own that IP, so 
> he does not own any derived works of that IP (regardless of where / 
> when / how he derived said works).
>
> Upshot - best not to do work on things at home which are using 
> anything which requires knowledge and ideas you would only been 
> exposed to whilst at work, unless you don't mind it being owned by the 
> company you work for because it probably will be from the point of any 
> court presiding over a case in that fashion, should it come up.
>
> Warmest Regards,
>
> Mark.
>