A friend of mine runs a teacher's professional organisation in Australia
and uses a Filemaker database to track membership etc. The database was
designed under contract by a guy who's turned out to be a right bastard.
He password protected it and now won't give them the password - he's
insisting that he do all maintainance/redesign on it and his charges
have gone from merely exorbitant to totally outrageous.

1. Am I correct in the advise I gave this friend that there's no way to
break the password? He's desperate to change to someone else but
obviously doesn't want to have to toss it away and start from scratch.

2. Assuming I am correct, I suggested that he look around for an
existing package to switch to. Can anyone suggest where to look? I've
quoted his (brief) outline below of what it does and what he'd like it
to do.

"Colin Croft" <ccroft (AT) iinet (DOT) net.au> schreef in bericht
news:46497a11$0$9114$5a62ac22 (AT) per-qv1-newsreader-01 (DOT) iinet.net.au...
Colin,

Both topics have been covered here before. They boil down to the following.
Although the developer might be to expensive for your friend to pay, it is
normal practise to protect a solution with paswords. As a developer I don't
want any and every nitwit to interfere with my solution. The solution is
mine, I only sell a license to use it, not to change it. This might seem
unreasonable from your perspective, but believe me it realy is standard
practise. The best way here might be trying to persuade the developer to use
the same rate as previous, because your friend is such a good customer. If a
customer asks me to provide an open source solution, I might agree, ask a
lot of money and let the user sign a contract that I will not solve any
problems he incorporated into the solution. I develop it, deliver it, but
will have nothing to do with it afterwards

Second; If there was any way to crack the passwords FileMaker would be a
very unsafe place to store your vulnerable data.

Existing packages in filemaker will probably never meet your standards or
needs. There is always something going to lack. So learn it yourself, charge
your friend a litle money and start building yourself.

Keep well, Ursus

Ursus wrote:

I do understand what you mean but I don't think it's quite so cut and
dried. My understanding is that it depends on the contract. For example,
the West Australian government (where I am) insists absolutely on having
copyright on any programs produced for them. You just don't bother
bidding if you're not prepared to agree to this. Others don't insist on
this. I do a bit of technical writing for HP on the side and they also
insist on owning copyright to anything written although I usually
include a clause in the contract to specify that I can adapt material
for re-use in other contracts. In Australia if it's not specified in the
contract then the copyright is retained by the developer and in this
case that may well be the case. I don't have access to the contract to
check. I suspect my friend will know better next time and specify
ownership! :-)

AFAIK they've tried this with no success.

I was virtually certain that this was the case but just wanted to check.

I had considered this option since I'm already familiar with Filemaker,
although not at the level of interaction with websites and forms. I
don't know if I have the time to take on a project of this size though,
particularly since it's apparently somewhat urgent. I was hoping to be
able to help the guy out by pointing him in the direction of an existing
solution but I can see your point that his needs are a bit sophisticated
for an off the shelf solution.

There are ways of getting into passworded FileMaker solutions, just as
there are ways to get into many "secured" systems.

I agree with Ursus in the case of "shrinkwrapped" solutions that are
sold as-is with the option for customization. In this case, the
developer clearly holds all rights.

But in the case of custom software, it typically does depend on the
contract. Most custom software development is done on a work-for-hire
basis, which essentially means the client has hired the developer to
design the application in a particular way usually from the ground up,
per their specs. On my custom software development, I would never
withhold the master password from a client. The solution belongs to the
client, though my development contract does state that any changes made
to the solution by someone other than me or my representatives will
incur my charges if I need to spend time fixing something that was
broken by such changes. In other words, I will give the client the
master password, but they are responsible for its safekeeping and for
the integrity of the system. Other developers don't give the password
but agree to have it held in escrow (in case of death or disagreement or
whatever).

Anyhow...

I would recommend contacting a professional developer in Australia who,
if they determine you have rights to the system, can likely get into it
and make your desired changes in a fair way. One developer, in
Victoria, is Ray Cologen <http://www.nightwing.com.au>, who is a highly
respected FileMaker developer and all-around nice guy. Another
respected developer, also coincidentally in Victoria, is Nicholas Orr
<http://www.goya.com.au/>. You will find a list of other certified
FileMaker developers at
<http://www.filemaker.com.au/solutions/find/consultants.html>

Good luck to you...


Colin Croft wrote:

In article <134jhi4e9fvju74 (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com>, Howard Schlossberg
<howard (AT) nospam (DOT) fmprosolutions.com> wrote:

Yep, software develope for general use is basically owned by the
developer. This is so that they can sell it to anyone who wants it.

Any extra customisation then creates a version specific to a customer
and unless used in the standard product would require extra work, extra
payment and usually mean THAT version of the product fits more into the
custom area below.




Yep 2, software developed for a specific customer's needs really
belongs to that customer. They should be given all the passwords,
documentation, etc. - even if it's a "just in case I get run over by a
bus" option. Software made in this way is usually of little benefit to
the developer since the highly specific needs make it unlikely to fit
another customer's needs.


These are of course "standard" options based on common sense, but every
developer / company will have their own way of working and all such
things should be talked about BEFORE the system is developed and put
into a proper contract to protect both side.

Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)

On May 15, 3:12 am, "Ursus" <ursus.k... (AT) wanadoo (DOT) nl> wrote:
Its common. Its not standard any stretch.

To my mind, no customer in their right mind would agree to pay for
*custom written software* made by a developer who felt they were only
licensing the finished product. Its easy enough to find developers who
will work with the customer to find a more mutually respectful
solution.

The best way forwards is to evaluate whether the customer or the
developer really owns it. Sue for the master password if you have
grounds for it. Read your contract. Consult your lawyer. If the
contract doesn't stipulate that he owns it, and it was in fact custom
written from the ground up to your specifications with an agreement in
place to pay for the finished product. If there is no 'license
agreement' etc. You might be able to establish that it is in fact your
property, a work for hire, written by him for you.

Conversely if its a product he initially developed, and then sold you
with customizations you'll have a much weaker case, but even then,
depending on circumstances you may be entitled to the key to modify
your licensed copy, even if you don't own the copyright itself.

The law is subtle on ownership in cases like this, and it varies from
country to country.

Although I am a developer myself I've subcontracted out before, and
there was NEVER any illusion that the people I had working on
something were licensing the fruits of their labour back to me.
Whether they wrote a utility, or designed a web site, or built a web
service, or wrote a class libary... the product was almost never
theirs. I say almost, because in a couple cases the contractor has had
a project that only needed to be adjusted to meet my needs, and then
of course he retained his copyrights, but even they assigned unlimited
license for the customer to distribute internally for their own use,
and allowed for the customer to modify it in the future.

But If I sub contracted a developer to write an FM front end to a SQL
database I was working on I would laugh an applicant out of the
building if they even suggested terms that included withholding the
master password from me and/or the customer.

Anyhow, failing that, I'd abandon it and rebuild from scratch under
proper terms you can live with. Unless its an exceedingly large system
it will cost less than you might think. Especially as you already have
a working version, which will make an excellent "specifications
document and working prototype" for who ever is tasked with doing it.

best regards,
Dave



If you lose a password, filemaker has services to recover it for you,
provided you satisfy them that its your file. Or at least they used
to. I've never had to use them myself,

On May 15, 1:55 pm, Helpful Harry <helpful_ha... (AT) nom (DOT) de.plume.com>
wrote:
Legally (and IANAL either so take it with a grain of salt):

A work made for hire (sometimes abbreviated to work for hire) is an
exception to the general rule that the person who actually creates a
work is the legally-recognized author of that work.

The actual (US) copyright act says this:

Works Made for Hire. -- (1) a work prepared by an employee within the
scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work specially ordered or
commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part
of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a
supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a
test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties
expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work
shall be considered a work made for hire. 17 U.S.C. sec 101

Right off the top, works by employees automatically belong to the
employer. And the 2nd part stipuates that contracted work belongs to
the individual unless it is otherwise agreed. There are two areas for
"wiggle room".

The first is the nature of independant contractor vs employee... a lot
of independant contractors are viewed as being employees by the
courts. In Canada for example, the nature of the relationship between
employer and contractor supercedes any 'agreements' -- e.g. an
independant contractor can be determined to be an employee even if
both the employer and contractor wish otherwise. Its not up to them;
it depends on the nature of their relationship.

The second boils down to the language of the contract. While ideally
you'd want it to say 'work for hire', and I'm sure in the OPs case it
doesn't -- if it lacks those terms other language might imply it. For
example if it refers to the contractor working on the customers
software for example, that might be construed to represent an
agreement that the software belonged to the customer. In the abscense
of a formal contract, other correspondance and documentation might
indicate frame of mind as well.

If the developer built something for you without a contract with an
unwritten understanding that it was yours, and then 'discovered' later
on that he actually could be entitled to the work and tries holding it
hostage (I've seen this happen a number of times.) any correspondance
you have about the project may convince a court of the original
understanding.

-------------

As a separate issue.

Even if the court recognizes the developer as the author and copyright
holder, you may still be entitled to the key to your copy. After all,
your intention isn't to assert ownership and start distributing it or
infringe on his copyright. Your intention is to make further
adjustments to what you *already* purchased. Even if you don't own the
copyright, you may well own the key to your own copy, especially in
the absence of a license agreement or contract that says otherwise.

On some level, the key to the software is *part* of the software you
paid for. In the absence of a contract or agreement stating otherwise,
the developer is restricting your use of your copy of the software.
One of the reasons filemaker is popular is precisely because its easy
to modify and customise.

That is a feature of filemaker applications, and if its a feature you
paid for its a feature you should have access to.

-regards,
Dave

Thank you to all of you for your replies. I've forwarded some of them to
my friend and I'll leave it up to him what he wants to do. I gather he's
leaning towards a complete rewrite.

d-42 wrote:

In article <1179265175.750922.172070 (AT) y80g2000hsf (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
d-42 <db.porsche (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Copyright / author rights are completely different to ownership, and as
usual most laws are so outdated that they don't take into account new
technology changes.

I doubt anyone would be stupid enough to claim the person who developed
the FileMaker system was not the "author".



True. If I buy a book, then the copyright stops me from making copyies
and selling them to anyone else ... but it doesn't stop the me ripping
the book into separate pages and then re-arranging the pages in any old
order, no matter how unusable the final result may be. )

In terms of ownership, there's also the common sense that if somebody
pays what can be thousands of dollars for a system, they shouldn't have
to start all over from scratch simply because the developer gets
squashed by a bus. This of course is less of a problem when dealing
with a company (although the company can go bankrupt) than a one-man
business.

Of course there will always be people who are very greedy or silly, so
it is ALWAYS best to have a very clear understanding of everything
involved (full costs, ability to re-sale to others, etc.), which is
best done via a written contract ... and that's not just for FileMaker
systems either.


Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)

Nobody denies the person who developed the filemaker system is the
'author' in the literal sense but if the system is a work for hire
copyright belongs to the party that paid for it not the party that
actually authored it.

The idea of works-for-hire is a specific exception to normal copyright
that assigns ownership of the work to the person who commissioned and
paid for it (for example an employer).

The music industry is famous for 'abusing' this and most bands don't
own the copyrights to their own music. They can lose the right to
perform their own songs... and this has happened famously on several
occasions.

Exactly... well sort of... close enough.

That's definitely a tricky issue. Companies discontinue products all
the time, even expensive ones, and customers are routinely forced into
purchasing anew from a new vendor or even the same vendor from
scratch.

Agreed.