[DUG] In case you're interested (or buy stuff)
Neven MacEwan
neven at mwk.co.nz
Fri May 5 21:55:33 NZST 2006
Rohit
The point is "stored away by the Builder" since they were his
responsibility, I'd suggest the action was prudent
Neven
Rohit Gupta wrote:
> How about this.
>
> When we had a house fire, the belongings that did not get damaged or were
> fixed and returned were stored away by the Builder at Crown until the house
> was ready. When they were returned we found them all marked indelibly
> with the Builders Name :-(
>
> Subject: RE: [DUG] In case you're interested (or buy stuff)
> Date sent: Fri, 5 May 2006 14:24:27 +1200
> From: "Kyley Harris" <kyley at harrissoftware.com>
> To: "NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi List" <delphi at ns3.123.co.nz>
> Send reply to: NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi List <delphi at ns3.123.co.nz>
> <mailto:delphi-request at ns3.123.co.nz?subject=unsubscribe>
> <mailto:delphi-request at ns3.123.co.nz?subject=subscribe>
>
> [ Double-click this line for list subscription options ]
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Delphi mailing list
> Delphi at ns3.123.co.nz
> http://ns3.123.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi
> Regards
>
> Rohit
>
> ======================================================================
> CFL - Computer Fanatics Ltd. 21 Barry's Point Road, AKL, New Zealand
> PH (649) 489-2280
> FX (649) 489-2290
> email rohit at cfl.co.nz or r.gupta at xtra.co.nz
> ======================================================================
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Delphi mailing list
> Delphi at ns3.123.co.nz
> http://ns3.123.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi
>
>
--
Neven MacEwan (B.E. E&E)
Ph. 09 620 1356 Mob. 027 4749 062
New Address Details
===================
MWK Computer Systems
1 Taumata Rd
Sandringham
Auckland
Ph 620 1356
Fx 620 1336
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: neven.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 164 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://ns3.123.co.nz/pipermail/delphi/attachments/20060505/1bf85483/neven-0001.vcf
More information about the Delphi
mailing list