🚀 go-pugleaf

On 06 Oct 1998 06:15:17 +0200, Axel Boldt <axel@uni-paderborn.de>
wrote:

>les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>
>> Are you saying that you should never be able to hire anyone to
>> help with something without giving them ownership of the final
>> product?
>
>A radical thought, isn't it. However, not without precedent. For
>example, even though I pay money to MS for their final product, I'm
>not able to gain ownership of it in any way, shape or form. I only
>gain usage rights. Why should the relationship between employee -
>corporation be differently structured?
>

This is a distinction without a difference, because in the case of
software, at least from the perspective of the end user, ownership and
usage rights are exactly the same thing.  

Employers don't own workers by the way, they just contract for the use
of their time.  What is created belongs to the employer.  Just like
when you write the great American novel with MS Word it belongs to
you, not MS.

The law defines ownership in terms of usage rights.  Otherwise, the
concept of ownership is meaningless.  Do you "own" property, as in
land?  Yes, then try taking it with you when you go somewhere.  To own
land is simply the right to use it, and even then, your right to use
it is oftentimes restricted.