One thought might be to share the information you gave them as widely as possible. For example, I'd be interested in reading that ten page write-up you mentioned.

Similarly, since your code was open sourced, you should be allowed to redistribute derivative works. Meaning: fight back. Create modules and what not to allow the open source community to do those very things that they're not permitting. Oh, sure, you'll need to build a new community, find new servers, and so forth. Nevertheless, if you're angry enough to take effective action, it may be possible to put them out of business. Barring that happy circumstance, you can at least dent their success in that business to some degree.

If you take that latter approach, I'd be sure to change certain things subtly, just in case their administrators and code monkeys weren't listening as carefully as they should have been during your training sessions. Make them work to participate in any new projects along these lines. Confuse 'em even. That way, mebbe they'll have to reconsider their tactics.

Remember: Resistance is not futile.

--f

I was satisfied with the answer I got: "well, our bosses dont really know we're doing this."

That could be where the latest change came from.

I was working at a company to Open Source a particular product of theirs and it got killed from upper management after some rather nasty political stuff went down. I later found docs on why it wasn't to be Open Sourced. Mainly due to much of the code having different styles. (Because most of the code had been Open in the first place.)
Was I bitter about this? yes.
Was I upset that it got killed due to someone elses misconceptions or bias? yes.
Did I realize it was totally out of my control and that it was better to just let it go? yes

dep Unless you can bring legal bearing on them, it's better to chalk it up to experience. Have the client sign a contract, etc... to make sure your code isn't abused. You can write a letter to Music City expressing your displeasure and it may help you get some stuff off your chest, but don't count on any change. It may happen, but don't count on it.

I'm sorry I don't have anything to say that's terribly comforting about this. If you want to prevent your code from being used by people for purposes other than those of which you approve, then you will be, to that extent, closing up your license, even if the provision is weaker than the (obviously too strong) "I reserve the right to revoke your right to use this software and its source code if I determine that your project contravenes (provisions from my value system)".

The BSD license obviously won't prevent this sort of abuse, nor will the GPL. The GPL might thwart their desire to close up their source, because they're distributing the software to their users, which would at least give their users some sort of hook into their code, and to a limited extent, to their servers and protocols. But there's no morals clause in the GPL.

I'm less familiar with the Artistic license, but I see no language in there that prevents this sort of abuse of your good will.

In truth there's nothing that you can do.

Trying to take control of your sofware after the fact is like a retroactive abortion.

Whatever one's personal opinions about pr0n are, it is important to note that the licenses you mention successfully protect the company from you. You have to understand that what's going on there is the same as if they had hired someone else, they had D/L'ed code you wrote as a Module and then used it in a manner that offends you.

What people need to understand about Open Source is this:

1. You still can own Open Source code. It's all in your license. I suggest that if this sort of thing worries you that you create a contract of service and use that to protect yourself.

2. If what you've published is intended to be freeware then you've got to assume that pr0n & nuclear weapons engineers will eventually do something with it that you might not like.

3. As a Software Professional it is up to you to conduct yourself in a professional manner. This includes asking and getting paid for your work. We all have to eat somehow.

4. 'freedom of the press belongs to those who own one.' If you want to control your own servers, buy them & set them up. Put your money where your mouth is.

And now "priceless advice": Get your revenge, sell the code to their chief competetor. Even if you need to wait the 6 months after your contract expires.

Yes, Save the World & Write PERL code. But don't forget to feed your children along the way. It's only fair.

I should have copyrighted that song sooner. It wouldn't have made any difference. In a court of law you have to prove that someone was able to hear your song. Good Luck!

That was a lesson that I learned about the music business! It's not about music, it's about business. Just like the porn business or show business or the software business. It all comes down to the almighty dollar.

That's all my song was worth to them. Dollars! They did not care about the intention behind my song. They screwed me so well that if I told you the car commercial, I'd get my hand legally slapped.

The only thing we can do as a community to prevent things like this from happening, is to band together and let the money hoarders know we don't want to take their (explitive deleted). Lotta good that will do when I gotta feed my children.

Don't sign the "Intellectual Property" paperwork. That means that you might not get the gig. Have them add a stipulation stating that they can have the actual code but (add the Microsoft reverse engineering clause) they can't have the underlying methodology. You probably still won't get the gig.

Any music I compose now stays inside my studio. I may try to release it some day. And you can bet if I do I will have to go into business just to save my songs from exploitation.

I'm crying right along side you.

I should have copyrighted that song sooner.

Actually you already did have it copyrighted. In both the US and Canada you become the owner of the copyright of an original work that you've created automatically.

For more deatils, start here

You are 100% correct mothra. There is a ruling in the US courts that says the only legally permissable evidence is a proof of authorship from the library of congress. That is why the old "mail yourself a copy and keep it unopened" does not work. They decided against that method.

Also, I don't have the time or money to go up against a corporation. I don't know where my witnesses are at this point and I don't even think that they used more than four or five bars from it.

Thanks for the link!

But it is not a registered copyright, only *implied* and you have to prove it is your work, original, and created/published before the alleged infraction or the work.

Back in December, deprecated and I went to MusicCity after watching their stats on Napigator climb to the top. Because of the nature of the climb (extremely fast) we assumed that they had modified Dr. Scholl's code to "spoof". After talking with Firestormo (apparently the lead SysAdmin) for awhile, we discovered (or so we thought) that this was apparently being run in a porn data center WITHOUT the knowledge of the higher ups.

That was lie #1. Lie #2: We vow to remain FREE!!

This was told to us by someone claiming to be the "CEO" during our conversation with Firestormo. After much banter with Firestormo deprecated and I both offered our help and advice. deprecated more so then I since my knowledge is limited.

Over the next several months, firestormo would pop into our network from time to time asking questions. This would usually end with deprecated going over to MusicCity and working on solutions for their growing pains.

Did deprecated assist MusicCity? Yes.

I know this, because the very scripts (in Perl of course) they used, I use. I am part of deprecated's merry band of opennap server admins, and I talk to him quite a bit.

One last note to MusicCity:

Way to crap on the OpenSource movement guys. You make me want to puke. Also, why are you running your software on top of the Internet Explorer interface? Are your people just retarded?

Enough.

muzakfetch

I'm not sure of the legality of that technique, though. It seems that as long as you own the code and they're just licensing it from you, then you can make the code work however you want, including making it not work at all. But I'm not a lawyer, and don't even play one on TV.

Still, it's something to consider. If they're willing to rip you off like that, they're probably just as willing to walk all over any license you make them sign. Adding a self-destruct would put enough power in your hands to resolve difficulties like this.

But it sure would suck if they *were* a nice company, and the self-destruct got found out by someone else...

Update: Upvote! Downvote! Upvote! Downvote! Ah, sweet controversy.

Like I said, I don't know if this is legal. Probably there's different ways to implement both the code and the accompanying license, some ways will be legal, some ways won't. The idea is not without precedent, though. Take a look at this bastion of legality and moral uprightness.

Ethically, it's a grey area. It's somewhat akin to carrying a concealed weapon. Some will pack heat for protection, others will use it to rob banks. Implementing self-destruct code gives the programmer a considerable measure of power over the client, and that power could certainly be abused.

But is it morally right to exercise such power in a case like this? (not "legal" -- "right") I'll leave that question open. :)

As for implementation, it needn't be a complete erasure of the code. Simply making it not work, or even slowing it down considerably, would suffice. Perhaps make it check for a file tucked away somewhere. No findie, no workie. An implementation like that might even be passed off as a simple bug, if done cleverly enough.

Hey, you could even start a consulting business just writing code like that. "I want Amazon down, see? But make it look like an accident."

---
I'm too sexy for my .sig.

This does not sounds like a good solution to me at all. Not only is it ethically questionable at best, but technically unfeasible as well. Don't companies keep a backup copy of the code somewhere? The only way to truly ensure total "destruction" of the code is to create some sort of self-propagating worm that would hunt down and destroy all copies. I think anyone who tried something like that would get the pants sued off them quicker than you can say "dumb idea."

A prof I had back in college does a bit of contract work on the side. She learned a trick early on that she employs in every job she does -- self-destruct code.

Be very careful (read: have a good lawyer) with this one. In states that have passed the dread UCITA (the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act), self-destruct code is legal. Your mileage in other states may vary, but could include costly litigation.

If you're not aware of what UCITA is, or how badly it sucks for consumers, see http://www.badsoftware.com/uccindex.htm

Yet the very purpose of the aforementioned code is to share music and other files in a way that probably 95% of those files' creators would not agree with.

Isn't this hypocritical? How have you not violated other's ideals and rights to a greater extent than yours were violated?

And that's being kind, it goes even farther than that. MusicCity apparently discontinued its use of your software when they switched networks. So the fact that you helped them with software they no longer use is supposed to allow you to dictate to them forever what they should do and how they should be required to spend their money on servers and bandwidth?

Unbelievable.