Re: [NMock2-Dev] NMock2 website current status

[Nat P. <nat...@gm...>]

Actually the lawyer in the London office said that TW have no claim on
any code we wrote in our own time unless it competed with a system
being built by or for a client.  E.g. no open-source billing systems
for major ISPs or fixed-income derivative trading systems allowed.

--Nat.

On 2/15/06, Paul Gale <pau...@gm...> wrote:
>
> AFAIK, for as long as you were on the TW payroll they have ALL intellectu=
al
> property rights associated with any work you do whether it be done on you=
r
> own time and/or your own machine or not. They own said IP. Folks keep
> forgetting that. Therefore they have the right to have their name display=
ed
> anyway and anywhere they want if any contributions were made to the proje=
ct
> by active ThoughtWorkers. This is ofcourse, only if they wanted to get
> snippy about it, but you shouldn't ignore it. So the fact that TW did not
> put up any cash for its implementation is not the issue.
>
> Paul
>
>
> On 15/02/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/15/06, Stephen Freeman <st...@m3...> wrote:
> > > If TW has actually provided people with time (which I don't remember
> > > happening in London) then that should be recognised, and we can put a
> > > link up but not a dominating one.
> >
> > I agree.  If (and only if) TW has funded people to do this then they
> > should be attributed on the team page.
> >
> > --Nat.
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log
> files
> > for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
> > searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
> >
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdlnk&kid=103432&bid#0486&dat=121642
> > _______________________________________________
> > NMock-two-dev mailing list
> > NMo...@li...
> >
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev
> >
>
>