Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Developers’ side projects

joelonsoftware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 411 posts

Re: Developers’ side projects

#221

Post by knocte »

dangoor wrote: post #198
knocte wrote: post #197

There's a loophole in most of these draconian contracts: they might own the copyright of what you do in your spare time, but they don't get to decide the license you use for your software (at least I've never seen any clause about this, ever). Then the solution is to use a liberal opensource license (MIT), and publish it somewhere. If you decide to reuse that code in the future for your own venture, you can just use…

That's not right. The owner of the copyright is the only entity that can decide the license of the code.

That's an assumption. Following that assumption, you would need to ask your employer if he agrees with any tiny contribution you do to any open source project out there. Which doesn't scale. What the employment contract does is own the contribution precisely because it doesn't make any sense to ask permission everytime an employee writes anything in his own time.

Re: Developers’ side projects

#222

Post by lerpa »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #154
microcolonel wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Specifically at Google, you must submit work-unrelated open source submissions through Google legal; though they seem to be fairly quick with it.

When I was there I submitted three, every time they came back and said that they wouldn't sign off because it was related. The last one was an iOS only kitchen timer application. It was at that point I was was convinced that emailing legal to ask permission was a hack to get you to disclose early what you were working on so that when they sued you they already had some of the initial leg work done :-(. I consulted wi…

So you are paid to work a fixed number of hours, but in exchange they own you for the other hours you're not even there. And I thought only backwards people from the South enjoyed that line of "business".

Re: Developers’ side projects

#223

Post by charlesism »

morgante wrote: post #218
charlesism wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Be mindful of Joel's bias (he's a CEO, not a developer). Sorry, but this is ridiculous. Spolsky has built his career around promoting a good work environment for developers. After reading his blog for many years, listening to his talks and podcasts... he's either an extremely talented thespian, or one of the most conscientious people in tech. And, while everyone has bias, I seriously doubt Joel and StackOverflow wo…

I think Spolsky has done a fantastic job of building a an employer brand that attracts developers. It allows him to attract quality developers at under-market rates. I don't necessarily think this is even a conscious act on his part. It's just that if you spend decades on one side of the table, you inevitable adapt that side's biases. Every employer wants their employees focused solely on their projects.

I get what you're saying, and with most other CEOs I would agree, but it doesn't really compute in his case. Considering the amount of time he has spent for the past decade+ evangelizing the developer side of things, and how obviously he empathizes with life as a developer... I'm happy to accept whatever he says at face value. He's a good egg.

Also, thank you for giving me the opportunity to post something positive about someone in tech! I'm generally the one being cynical and negative, so it's a nice change :)

Re: Developers’ side projects

#224

Post by shandor »

charlesism wrote: post #215
morgante wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope nobody is dissuaded from working on side projects by this post. First of all, restricting contracts to only work related to the company's business is not unheard of (even outside of California). Every company I've worked at has agreed to that. Secondly, it ignores the abundant evidence that people successfully turn side projects into businesses all the time without being sued by their ex-employers. In fact, I'…

> Be mindful of Joel's bias (he's a CEO, not a developer). Sorry, but this is ridiculous. Spolsky has built his career around promoting a good work environment for developers. After reading his blog for many years, listening to his talks and podcasts... he's either an extremely talented thespian, or one of the most conscientious people in tech. And, while everyone has bias, I seriously doubt Joel and StackOverflow wo…

I have nothing against Joel. But to be fair, as people in finance use to say, "history is not indicative of the future".

Re: Developers’ side projects

#225

Post by caseysoftware »

schwarrrtz wrote: post #200

At my last job working for a small software company, I was able to get my boss to modify the employment contract such that a specific list of other projects (attached as an appendix to the contract) was excluded from the work product & IP ownership clauses. The idea was that if I wanted to work on a side project, I would clear it with him first, and then we would sign a quick amending agreement to the original contra…

That's what I've always done. I've found that most employers have few issues with saying "these projects predate employment and we don't own or want them."

In one case, I had a clause that said "anything that increases my recognition in [area of tech] is now owned by the company." It was almost too broad but I managed to stay well within the bounds and never have a "questionable" project.

Re: Developers’ side projects

#226

Post by morgante »

charlesism wrote: post #223
morgante wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Spolsky has done a fantastic job of building a an employer brand that attracts developers. It allows him to attract quality developers at under-market rates. I don't necessarily think this is even a conscious act on his part. It's just that if you spend decades on one side of the table, you inevitable adapt that side's biases. Every employer wants their employees focused solely on their projects.

I get what you're saying, and with most other CEOs I would agree, but it doesn't really compute in his case. Considering the amount of time he has spent for the past decade+ evangelizing the developer side of things, and how obviously he empathizes with life as a developer... I'm happy to accept whatever he says at face value. He's a good egg. Also, thank you for giving me the opportunity to post something positive a…

I guess I'm not in the habit of accepting anything anyone says at face value. It doesn't mean he's running some long-running conspiracy, it's simply a reminder that his perspective comes from a particular position.

Re: Developers’ side projects

#227

Post by aithoughts »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #175
rqebmm wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true, but ultimately if your company wants to be a dick about it, you could still end up having to fight them in court. They just have to say "when we signed that form you said it was a app, but now it's turned into a app which competes with our business. Hand it over." As Joel says, a judge/jury will probably be inclined to find for you, but you still have go through the pain and cost of litigation. Also, wh…

But you have to quit your day job before starting the side business, or working on it at all. Otherwise your ex-employer still has a claim on your business. The beauty of side projects is not having to make them pay the bills. As soon as you have to make them pay the rent, they stop being side projects. But having an ex-employer sue you for lots of money because your side project is booming is a great problem to have…

> is a great problem to have ;)

Your comment is inspiring. The question then becomes, how much of your project's worth, as a percentage, are they going to come after you for?

Re: Developers’ side projects

#228

Post by lerpa »

sgentle wrote: post #189

I find this mindset totally disgusting, but I'm glad it's been summed up in such a concise way. > Being an employee of a high tech company whose product is intellectual means that you have decided that you want to sell your intellectual output, and maybe that’s OK, and maybe it’s not, but it’s a free choice. Let's clarify that phrase, "sell your intellectual output". Keep in mind that earlier in the article we discov…

> The evident conclusion is that there are none. You are selling all of your intellectual output.

The conclusion is that we either reject this kind of slavery, or at least start charging the extra hours.

Re: Developers’ side projects

#229

Post by charlesism »

morgante wrote: post #226
charlesism wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get what you're saying, and with most other CEOs I would agree, but it doesn't really compute in his case. Considering the amount of time he has spent for the past decade+ evangelizing the developer side of things, and how obviously he empathizes with life as a developer... I'm happy to accept whatever he says at face value. He's a good egg. Also, thank you for giving me the opportunity to post something positive a…

I guess I'm not in the habit of accepting anything anyone says at face value. It doesn't mean he's running some long-running conspiracy, it's simply a reminder that his perspective comes from a particular position.

  > I'm not in the habit of accepting anything anyone says at face value.
Well, that is generally a wise approach. The only reason I'm defending him is that I mentally pegged him a long time ago as an unusually decent guy. To be fair, I only know him from his writings and public speaking, but that has been consistently developer-minded.

Re: Developers’ side projects

#230

Post by dfraser992 »

If you read the fine print, software can't fall under the 'work for hire' provisions. At all. People think so, but just saying 'work-for-hire' in a contract isn't valid (enough). There has to be a explicit copyright transfer process backed up by paperwork.

I ran into this myself, but decided not to get in a tussle with this client who turned out to be ripping off customers, not paying me, etc. etc. Things had been progressing along under the assumption the company owned the copyright, or I was implicitly transferring copyright, and to go and try claw back everything I'd written would have been perhaps futile (the courts would not have thought much of my change of mind) and a very big time and money black hole.

I thoroughly pay attention to contract matters now. I never had a bad client before and none of the stuff I'd developed before either seemed valuable enough. But writing _all_ the code for a startup that ... oh, I don't want to take about it :)

Post reply on HN