[DUG] In case you're interested (or buy stuff)

[Kyley Harris]

On the funny side. Imagine if you hired a painter for your house, and
instead of leaving his business card, and asking for a written
reference, he signed his name on all the walls. :)

>That would be illegal, wouldn't it?  If you have 10 contractors working
for 
>you at the same time, you really need 10 additional licenses.

Depends on the software license weather its illegal or not. I've seen
companies do it. Besides. If Sourcesafe is concurrent users then.

Bob writes his changes at 4pm
Bill writes his changes at 4:15pm etc.

There are many bizarre things in the world when you contract long
enough.

Many places I have contracted I have been told to give them the code to
check in because they ARE using sourcesafe and the DON'T want to pay for
the extra licenses. It is NOT illegal if one person is doing all the
checking in
And checking out... depends on your perversity.

Anyway, I just found the whole topic amusing and thought that each side
had an equally valid purpose for what was done. Except the easter
egg.... unless you were not contracting. You can do what you want if you
are not contracting.


-----Original Message-----
From: delphi-bounces at ns3.123.co.nz [mailto:delphi-bounces at ns3.123.co.nz]
On Behalf Of Dennis Chuah
Sent: Friday, 5 May 2006 7:33 a.m.
To: NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi List
Subject: Re: [DUG] In case you're interested (or buy stuff)


CVS is free, and SourceSafe is licensed by the number of concurrent
users 
who have write access to the repository.

With CVS, contractors can check in through the web, and with VPN, there
is 
no excuse for the contractor to email code to you.  Make it their 
responsibility to properly use the source control software.

> You use source control that requires named licenses. Are you going to
by
> lots of licenses for all the contractors? Or like many companies. By
11
> licenses and call one CONTRACTOR. So all 20 contractors will appear as
> the same one.

That would be illegal, wouldn't it?  If you have 10 contractors working
for 
you at the same time, you really need 10 additional licenses.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kyley Harris" <kyley at harrissoftware.com>
To: "NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi List" <delphi at ns3.123.co.nz>
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 12:10 AM
Subject: RE: [DUG] In case you're interested (or buy stuff)


>> for one, would insist that programmers not sign code, contractors or
>>therwise.  I would rather they used the time to document the code and
> leave
>>t up the source control to manage the who did what.
>
> That raises an interesting question.
>
> What source control are you using?
>
> Assume the following: say 10 in house developers, and 10 contractors
> (who change randomly and often) say 20 unique contractors per year.
>
> You use source control that requires named licenses. Are you going to
by
> lots of licenses for all the contractors? Or like many companies. By
11
> licenses and call one CONTRACTOR. So all 20 contractors will appear as
> the same one.
>
> Sometimes it comes down to economies of scale.
>
>
> Seconds Theory....
>
> You find some code and download it. Or a contractor works on it and
> emails it to you. You import it into Starteam or Other? Who is the
> auther? As far as starteam is concerned the importer wrote the code.
>
> I think anyone who said "you missed the point" was looking at this
> discussion based only on the experience of their current style of
> employment"
>
> There is no point other than this. The minute you write a piece of
code
> that becomes available to anyone except you there will always be
someone
> who might assert the code is theirs, or remove copyrights. That's what
> copyright infringement is for.
>
> If you really want to feel safe just do your job better. If your code
is
> being used, thefted or other, consider it a bonus. It means you are
> better at your job and you will last longer. Those who suck as
> developers and need to infringe will end up working corporate anyway.
> Water off a ducks back, because you cant really sue in NZ.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: delphi-bounces at ns3.123.co.nz
[mailto:delphi-bounces at ns3.123.co.nz]
> On Behalf Of Dennis Chuah
> Sent: Thursday, 4 May 2006 11:51 p.m.
> To: NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi List
> Subject: Re: [DUG] In case you're interested (or buy stuff)
>
>
> Me thinks you are the one missing the point here.  Its not about pride
> but
> about using source control to document which programmer did what to
the
> code.  It removes the need for programmers to sign code and is ample
> prove
> that you as a contractor has done what is required.
>
> I for one, would insist that programmers not sign code, contractors or
> otherwise.  I would rather they used the time to document the code and
> leave
> it up the source control to manage the who did what.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Delphi mailing list
> Delphi at ns3.123.co.nz
> http://ns3.123.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi
> 
_______________________________________________
Delphi mailing list
Delphi at ns3.123.co.nz
http://ns3.123.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi