|
|
|
| Authored by: cricketjeff on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 01:58 PM EDT |
Just because I am employed does not make all my work "work for hire".
Work I am employed to do is work for hire (if my contract says that), other
software I write is mine and what I do with it is up to me.
Even if it was "work for hire", the Berne Conventions are odd things
and it may well be that you cannot wish away all your writes under them.
---
There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Work for hire - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 02:25 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: mschmitz on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 04:17 PM EDT |
Having done the initial rangeCheck implementation in the first instance, how
much of a chance would Bloch have had to implement something significantly
different the second time around? Especially if he wasn't aware that it might be
crucial to make it look different in later years.
Plus he expressly stated that his implementation wasn't meant to be much more
than a placeholder, to be replaced by the canonical one once timsort got merged
into mainstream Java.
Reusing the 'same' code was good practice from an engineering point of view.
Reusing a verbatim copy is the safest way to ensure your stub is functionally
identical to the canonical implementation. This may cross the line in terms of
copyright law, but is that really all they have?
-- mschmitz
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
