Live data from Hacker News

An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

andychase.me

141–150 of 271 posts

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#141
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So gigster can do something really awful and I can't seek damages? The implication made here is that the writer believes that gigster is going to "do something awful". The over all tone of the writing is offensive rather than defensive . In other words, the email is not written like he wants questions answered, but rather that he'd like to jump to conclusions. The responses to his inquiries leave much to be desired…

> The implication made here is that the writer believes that gigster is going to "do something awful". That's a completely bullshit attack and putting words into his mouth. Gigster has the potentional to possibly to do something awful in the future due to being a company made of different people, with there being no guarantee that the people you're talking to one day are still there the next. And trust is only possib…

I'm not putting words in his mouth. He postured his question to be rhetorical. It's not even really a question at all. It doesn't seek clarification. It seeks a specific response: to get that person to admit to something they might not feel is true (that the company is awful or can do awful things). It's not nice and it's not an appropriate way to attempt to negotiate a contract.

He made things into a me vs you situation when. Had he formed his objections, those two individuals responding to his inquiries probably would have made an actual effort to resolve the issues.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#142
post #42

I've worked as a consultant for years. I occasionally employ a lawyer to review contracts with my clients. As a general rule of thumb, I'll only work for a client under one of three circumstances: 1. The client's standard contract is reasonable. This is rare. 2. The client's standard contract is unreasonable, but they're willing to cross-out or rewrite the objectionable bits before signing. This is very common. 3. It…

In my experience, it's very unusual for a company to simply state that it won't talk about it at all. I get one of these two patterns: 1. "Oh, okay, we see your point. We'll cross out clauses X and Y." 2. "Oh, thank you, we'll take this very seriously. Now we will have people talk at you for hours about why you can trust us and everyone else here was dumb enough to sign up."

I've had "This is a standard contract and can't be changed."

I said I wouldn't sign it in that case, and suddenly it turned out it could be changed after all....

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#143
post #11

That classic "well, nobody else has had a problem, so you must be the problem" response. I remember at one of my first jobs, myself and another programmer were working on a side project (outside of work hours, not using company resources in any way) that were considering monetising. Our contracts stated that the company we worked for owned all of our code produced in and out of working hours. We got to the business e…

Come on, people. Not "we are working on", but "if I were to start working".

Please don't advocate for making willfully misleading statements to one's employer which might have legal repercussions (IANAL, etc).

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#144

I get the whole 'this isn't fair argument.' But these contracts impact peoples livelihood so I will attempt to help. First, don't respond to HR with a complex set of legal questions. They wont know the answer and will push back -- corporate attorneys will charge astronomical amounts and these questions could even get the board involved -- which the CEO usually doesn't want to do. My suggestions: 1) The strike: Print…

Note that you can't do #2 if an officer of the company signs it first. But in my experience, documents like these don't even have a signature line for anyone other than you. So long as you are just unilaterally agreeing with yourself, you can agree to anything you like. You can write in that you're going to treat yourself to ice cream on the first Friday of every month! I wonder why companies even delude themselves i…

They're still pretty enforceable. Not legally enforceable, but most people don't know their rights and aren't brave enough to test them, so waving some documents in front of them while saying "you agreed to this!" is enough to get compliance.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#145
Cofounder here. Really appreciate the discussion and all of the feedback. The spirit of the contract's never been intended to be unreasonably restrictive -- though I totally understand the concern. We wanted to include certain terms since as part of our model, we do own the code written specifically for Gigster projects. We certainly don't want to own code folks write outside of Gigster projects.

We've received very similar feedback recently and were going to do a review of the contract with our lawyers highlighting this specific issue. We'll also consider adding an FAQ around any contract nuances. We care about doing what is fair and while a lot of terms here are standard we'll try to review terms to make our position much clearer. Will share important updates.

Thanks

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#146
post #83
post #11

That classic "well, nobody else has had a problem, so you must be the problem" response. I remember at one of my first jobs, myself and another programmer were working on a side project (outside of work hours, not using company resources in any way) that were considering monetising. Our contracts stated that the company we worked for owned all of our code produced in and out of working hours. We got to the business e…

The ambiguous IP clause is very common in UK programmer employment contracts. I've had two experiences with it. Most recently, I was able to insert a clarifying clause that said "work not related to company's business and not done on company time/equipment doesn't count". Previously, I was working at a startup that didn't have this clause and employed a number of people who were Debian developers in their spare time.…

Please correct me if my layperson's interpretation is wrong, but that IP clause is one of the few things I don't worry about in UK employment contracts. When I first came across the phrase "during the course of employment"[1] that they invariably use and researched it, I got the impression that it seems to have specific legal meaning of when you'd reasonably be considered to be 'working for' the company. At the place of work, on duty for them, using company equipment, etc.

There are much more egregious terms in most copy-paste contracts that you can helpfully point out to HR people if you're feeling helpful (or mean), including attempted rewrites of UK labour law (meaningless, it always takes precedence) or ceding rights, to more subtle things such as full-time jobs disguised as freelance contracts, putting you at risk if the taxman comes a-calling[3].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Course_of_employment [2]: It's mostly used to judge whether the employer is vicariously responsible for an employee's offences, e.g. was the delivery driver on his own time or was he in the course of employment when he hit the pedestrian? [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IR35

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#147
Hey, I thought their answer was absolutely great!!!

My thinking, reading ONLY the dev's original email, was the same as what they wrote: then I read their reply and found their phrasing MUCH better.

Here's all you would have gotten from me:

------------------------------------ answer email I would have written ------------------------------

>Some questions I have about with this contract: (allowed for by section 11.5):

>>"including source code developed by Contractor ... generally applicable to other Customer projects"

We do not claim the source code for work you do that is unrelated to and not used by your work for us. If you develop some tooling that is general but used in the project, you have to assign rights. If you can't assign rights (for example it's open-source) don't use it. Use only new code that you develop and assign over to us fully.

>"Contractor agrees to indemnify Gigster from any and all claims, damages, liability, settlement, attorneys’ fees and expenses, as incurred, on account of the foregoing or any breach of this agreement"

Your reading is correct and we have absolutely no desire to appear in court for any reason. You waive all your rights to sue us. If you do want to sue someone, you will have to go work for a big company and go sue them, they will be happy to appear any number of times to dispute anything you want. We are not going to change that language.

That said we haven't had disagreements and don't intend to have any - we rely on you, after all. Put another way, we pay you more instead of taking that money and paying some lawyers to go argue with you. (This clause specifically prevents frivolous lawsuits - I want to reiterate that we don't have disputes with our developers. You can go talk to them and see how they are treated.)

>>"does not contain any third-party software, including without limitation, “open source,” “copy left,” “public” or other similar code or anything derived from or based on any of the foregoing"

>So I can't derive code from examples from django or flask documentation, cited stack overflow snippets, etc. etc. in my work? I'm not sure that would be a very effective way to operate.

There is nothing stopping Django from suing anyone using any of the source code they have included in their documentation. Copyleft is even stronger and our clients would be bound to freely make available the complete source code used by anything.

My suggestion is to learn to program, by reading documentation, and then simply code your own solutions. Likewise you can certainly peruse Stack Overflow for inspiration.

I will add that as a general rule we are not concerned about software patents, so that you do not have to be concerned about your "inspiration" leading you to use a technique whose implementation is generally protected (no matter what specific source code implements it).

However, as legal advice, please don't actively seek out patent status (willful infringement is a multiplier on damages) and if you do learn of a software patent affecting an algorithm you wish to use, seek an alternative. We've literally never had an issue with licensing.

So to summarize: by all means, read other people's code to learn a language. Read other people's responses on stack overflow and in documentation to learn specific approaches. By all means learn to program, from any source you want. Write your own code and assign it to your clients.

I hope this helps answer your questions as well as tell you some of our thinking. Our developers are treated very well. Let me know if there's anything else I can tell you or if you have any other questions!

"

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

that's literally what I would have said. There's nothing that needs clarification or change and the language the original dev quoted is incredibly clear and perfectly fair.

But, man, their response is even better. It says the same thing - but so much better. (Actually I lied - I wouldn't have thought of saying they treat developers really well -- so I included that part in my statement of what I would have written, even though I wouldn't have written it.)

In all this is awesome work by them : )

I don't have any disclaimer to make - no relation to the dev or Gigster.

--

EDIT: I got downvoted but their response is still absolutely fine.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#148

Cofounder here. Really appreciate the discussion and all of the feedback. The spirit of the contract's never been intended to be unreasonably restrictive -- though I totally understand the concern. We wanted to include certain terms since as part of our model, we do own the code written specifically for Gigster projects. We certainly don't want to own code folks write outside of Gigster projects. We've received very…

> we do own the code written specifically for Gigster projects.

That's good.

> We certainly don't want to own code folks write outside of Gigster projects.

That's good.

But the contract apparently says something else.

This reminds me of a contract gig I had a while ago. I asked them similar questions about their contract, and they said "that's not what we intend to do". OK... so could they update the contract to state their real intentions?

A: No.

OK. I don't need the work that badly. If the contract starts with bad terms and them lying to me, there isn't much reason to move forward.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#149
post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The implication made here is that the writer believes that gigster is going to "do something awful". That's a completely bullshit attack and putting words into his mouth. Gigster has the potentional to possibly to do something awful in the future due to being a company made of different people, with there being no guarantee that the people you're talking to one day are still there the next. And trust is only possib…

I'm not putting words in his mouth. He postured his question to be rhetorical. It's not even really a question at all. It doesn't seek clarification. It seeks a specific response: to get that person to admit to something they might not feel is true (that the company is awful or can do awful things). It's not nice and it's not an appropriate way to attempt to negotiate a contract. He made things into a me vs you situa…

The company can do awful things.

This is not a simple fact. It is a truth.

> He made things into a me vs you situation

No. They did. By not including the mirror of that clause indemnifying him against them, the contract was the first to state "you could do awful things", so they have no standing whatsoever to complain about anything.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#150

Cofounder here. Really appreciate the discussion and all of the feedback. The spirit of the contract's never been intended to be unreasonably restrictive -- though I totally understand the concern. We wanted to include certain terms since as part of our model, we do own the code written specifically for Gigster projects. We certainly don't want to own code folks write outside of Gigster projects. We've received very…

If this comment had been the last email response in the chain, I think that would have been great.

The fact that it wasn't, that an important issue was dismissed when raised in private, speaks far more to me than this public response.

Post reply on HN