# Who owns the web application after it code's distributed? **URL:** \ **Category:** Rails\ **Created:** [July 17, 2006, 11:37pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/who-owns-the-web-application-after-it-codes-distributed/98753 "2006-07-17T23:37:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![adistarmid](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/f14d63/32.png) [@adistarmid](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/adistarmid)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2006, 11:37pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/who-owns-the-web-application-after-it-codes-distributed/98753/1 "2006-07-17T23:37:40Z")
Let’s say I’m building a “to-do” list application using Ruby on Rails. I decide to sell it to a customer, and distribute the source code files to him. Can I then restrict the user from distrubting the files by creating a license that prohibits distribution? That is, is it possible to create a “single-user” license? Or, am I limited to distributing the source files under the MIT license? ---
**Author:** ![adistarmid](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/f14d63/32.png) [@adistarmid](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/adistarmid)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2006, 11:46pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/who-owns-the-web-application-after-it-codes-distributed/98753/2 "2006-07-17T23:46:26Z")
You may do anything you want with the source code you create - you may licence it in any form you wish and distribute it in anyway you wish. The MIT licence only applies if you are extending Rails itself. (Although, if you really need legal advice, go ask a lawyer :), as one I am not) ---
**Author:** ![adistarmid](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/f14d63/32.png) [@adistarmid](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/adistarmid)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 12:25am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/who-owns-the-web-application-after-it-codes-distributed/98753/3 "2006-07-18T00:25:10Z")
On 7/17/06, Bt Bt [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Let’s say I’m building a “to-do” list application using Ruby on Rails. I > decide to sell it to a customer, and distribute the source code files to > him. > > Can I then restrict the user from distrubting the files by creating a > license that prohibits distribution? That is, is it possible to create a > “single-user” license? > > Or, am I limited to distributing the source files under the MIT license? You’re not restricted in any way under the MIT license. It just basically says the authors are not liable for damages and things like that. It all depends on how you make your deal with your client. ---
**Author:** ![adistarmid](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/f14d63/32.png) [@adistarmid](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/adistarmid)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 1:07am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/who-owns-the-web-application-after-it-codes-distributed/98753/4 "2006-07-18T01:07:26Z")
Many great thanks Rick and Philip! ---
**Author:** ![adistarmid](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/f14d63/32.png) [@adistarmid](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/adistarmid)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 1:07am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/who-owns-the-web-application-after-it-codes-distributed/98753/5 "2006-07-18T01:07:33Z")
On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 23:37 +0200, Bt Bt wrote: > Let’s say I’m building a “to-do” list application using Ruby on Rails. I > decide to sell it to a customer, and distribute the source code files to > him. > > Can I then restrict the user from distrubting the files by creating a > license that prohibits distribution? That is, is it possible to create a > “single-user” license? > > Or, am I limited to distributing the source files under the MIT license? * * * It seems as though you failed to assert any ownership claims over the code when you contracted with your customer - that is the time to clarify ownership. If the customer paid you to develop the code for him, then it would seem, lacking any clarification to the contrary, that the owner of the code is that customer since he paid for it. That is my interpretation. Craig ---
**Author:** ![adistarmid](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/f14d63/32.png) [@adistarmid](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/adistarmid)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 1:22am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/who-owns-the-web-application-after-it-codes-distributed/98753/6 "2006-07-18T01:22:53Z")
On 7/17/06, Craig W. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > * * * > > It seems as though you failed to assert any ownership claims over the > code when you contracted with your customer - that is the time to > clarify ownership. If the customer paid you to develop the code for him, > then it would seem, lacking any clarification to the contrary, that the > owner of the code is that customer since he paid for it. That is my > interpretation. > > Craig IANAL, but I’ve always been told that it works the opposite of what you describe. As software consultants we are treated like Architects by default. For an architect, that means that when you hire him to design you a house, you have the right to build the house as often as you want and sell those houses, or to modify the plans and build houses based on the modified plans, but you do NOT have the right to sell/give away the architectural plans original nor modified. The original plan is actually owned by the architect. I don’t know who owns any modifications the buyer made. It has been my experience that any serious client ensures that you sign a work-for-hire contract to ensure they truly own the software at the end of the day. ## Greg Greg F. The Norcross Group Forensics for the 21st Century ---
**Author:** ![adistarmid](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/f14d63/32.png) [@adistarmid](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/adistarmid)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 2:24am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/who-owns-the-web-application-after-it-codes-distributed/98753/7 "2006-07-18T02:24:17Z")
On Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 07:23:16PM -0400, Elliott C. wrote: > I was in a situation close to this and according to the last legal > advice i was given the creator of the code has the copyright unless > specifficaly stated or the work was done in their offices or on their > equiptment. everywhere i’ve worked in the bay area and new york ive been given something at the beginning to sign saying ‘we own the copyright to all the code you write’. i havent done paying work for those who release solely under the GPL (anyone hiring? 🙂 but i’d surmise it would be the same situation there, eg “© University of California, Berkeley” and not your name… if you think its going to be an issue, or maybe even if not, i’d clarify it up front with your client. i’d think the GPL dual-license would be an easier sell to a consulting client than BSD, eg “i might open source parts of the project you paid me to do, but if one of your competitors wants to use in their product, they have to pay me too”. more chance the developer doesnt get raped, and more chance everyone else can use any derivatives… that doesnt change the fact that big evil corps like lockheed and various homeland security moneyopts prefer the BSD license, but maybe thats fitting 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![adistarmid](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/f14d63/32.png) [@adistarmid](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/adistarmid)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 1:26am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/who-owns-the-web-application-after-it-codes-distributed/98753/8 "2006-07-18T01:26:04Z")
I was in a situation close to this and according to the last legal advice i was given the creator of the code has the copyright unless specifficaly stated or the work was done in their offices or on their equiptment. Thats for US only and might not apply to all situations so calling a lawyer might be an option if that part is an issue. But as has been stated the mit liscense in no way restricts you from any form of reproduction. So you are perfectly free to sell it in anyway you want. Heck you could charge people for the rails source code if you wanted to. Nobody would buy it but you could. On 7/17/06, Craig W. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > * * * > > Rails mailing list > removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid > [http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails](http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails) – Elliott C. removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid