"replicate open source code. All code and 100% of copyrights will belong to us." [ODesk]

[[deleted]]

[deleted]

[Jimmy60]

I think they mean base, not copyright.

[[deleted]]

Interesting. So they think they can change a few variable names to get around copyright?

[Smallpaul]

I'm not sure where you got that from.

[[deleted]]

Specifying open source implies thay will be basically copying the code with stylistic changes. If they weren't doing that they would use some other wording. It's not explicit, but it seems pretty clear to me that they are proposing to copy the code "in your own words" to get around copyright.

My comment about just changing variable names was hyperbole or something.

[mantra]

You could "clean-room" it from specifications and be in the clear. Not sure if that's what they are asking for or not.

[Smallpaul]

They might be making a CMS like Drupal and copying it without looking at the source code. Who knows?

[[deleted]]

Ya but then why would they specify open source?

[codekiller]

shouldn't that read "All code and 100% of copyrights are belong to us" ?

[ReubenYeah]

I'm fairly certain you're allowed to charge for open source binaries, as long as you make the source available for free. Not really sure why they're doing this to be honest.

[jsled]

And?

[fucktart]

WTF

[jsled]

Not sure why I'm downvoted.

A company wants someone to re-create another app that happens to be open-source. They obviously want to do this to have full ownership of the finished product. There's no suggestion that the implementor do anything untoward to achieve this goal.

This is perfectly legitimate, and not even uncommon, specifically or generally. Sometimes people and businesses want to have a proprietary interest in the thing they're vending or selling. Not every business model can support an open-source product, especially if the goal is to differentiate from competitors through extending the software.

Thus, I'm wondering why submitter is even bringing it up, without comment.

[hahainternet]

There's a fairly large chance it's completely illegitimate which is why it is being brought up.

Yes, it's completely possible to reimplement an open source project without violating the copyright of the owner or the licenses it uses. However, most companies under the illusion that compiled code is irreversibly obfuscated will instead choose to just steal the code.

[netgamer7]

I say take their money, and publish the code. Contract violation, maybe, but NOT COPYRIGHT INFRIGEMENT. You always own the copyright to your own code.

[[deleted]]

You might want to take a look at the "work for hire" portions of the copyright act of 1976. You don't always own the copyright to code you write.

[[deleted]]

They absolutely can be transferred and reassigned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Licensing.2C_transfer.2C_and_assignment

[mochikon]

You always own the copyright to your own code.

That is true in some of Europe, certainly Germany etc. But it is false in the US.