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

I didn't get paid, so I open-sourced my client’s project

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 272 posts

Re: I didn't get paid, so I open-sourced my client’s project

#11

Post by etchalon »

vzaliva wrote: post #2

INAL but even if you did not get paid does not automatically means the result of work for hire belongs to you. If you are a contractor this is a smart thing to explicitly stipulate in the contract.

Absolutely. One of the most important clauses in our agency's MSA, and one of a small handful I consider non-negotiable, is the clause which says that the IP ownership of any work does not transfer until the work has been paid in full.

We don't negotiate on that clause, even under threat of losing very large contracts. IP ownership is the only real leverage contract developers have to get paid.

Re: I didn't get paid, so I open-sourced my client’s project

#13

Post by icebraining »

vzaliva wrote: post #2

INAL but even if you did not get paid does not automatically means the result of work for hire belongs to you. If you are a contractor this is a smart thing to explicitly stipulate in the contract.

There was some US case law quoted here where the court decided the contractors owned the copyright, and the client only had a (very broad) license.

That said, it's smart to explicitly write it in the contract; I believe a typical formulation is that the developer owns the copyright until payment, when it transfers to the client.

Re: I didn't get paid, so I open-sourced my client’s project

#14

Post by dymk »

Jare wrote: post #10
tyingq wrote: post #4

I wonder if the reverse has happened. Where a client pays for a project, and gets code, but it's terrible. So, open source it with attribution to the original developer and an appropriate README analysis of the low points. Edit: Wondering if it has happened doesn't mean I'm promoting it as a terrific idea.

But why would you opensource terrible code? Even if you want to write an essay about bad practices, it sounds easier to write it just taking extracts to illustrate the points. That said, attributing those extracts that you are criticizing would be pretty bad form, maybe even basis for a defamation suit. So, sounds messy either way.

The point would be to name-and-shame the coder that wrote it

Re: I didn't get paid, so I open-sourced my client’s project

#15

Post by coldtea »

verisimilitudes wrote: post #3

I find it odd that the license is MIT here. Since he ultimately wrote this gratis, that license means his client could easily return and use it gratis, whereas a license such as AGPLv3 would help ensure he'd actually get paid if this client decided it wanted to use it again.

>whereas a license such as AGPLv3 would help ensure he'd actually get paid if this client decided it wanted to use it again.

a) So would any competitor to the client.

b) The client can use the AGPLv3 version gratis too, even if they modify it, as it will be on their own server anyway.

Re: I didn't get paid, so I open-sourced my client’s project

#16

Post by icedchai »

vzaliva wrote: post #2

INAL but even if you did not get paid does not automatically means the result of work for hire belongs to you. If you are a contractor this is a smart thing to explicitly stipulate in the contract.

Even if you do get paid, the work belongs to you, unless the contract says otherwise. Most clients do not realize this, in my experience.

Re: I didn't get paid, so I open-sourced my client’s project

#17

Post by codingdave »

dymk wrote: post #14
Jare wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why would you opensource terrible code? Even if you want to write an essay about bad practices, it sounds easier to write it just taking extracts to illustrate the points. That said, attributing those extracts that you are criticizing would be pretty bad form, maybe even basis for a defamation suit. So, sounds messy either way.

The point would be to name-and-shame the coder that wrote it

What a terrible thing to do to a new, inexperienced coder.

Re: I didn't get paid, so I open-sourced my client’s project

#18

Post by tyingq »

codingdave wrote: post #17
dymk wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point would be to name-and-shame the coder that wrote it

What a terrible thing to do to a new, inexperienced coder.

I don't see any context where it's necessarily a new, inexperienced coder.

Re: I didn't get paid, so I open-sourced my client’s project

#19

Post by nostrademons »

vzaliva wrote: post #2

INAL but even if you did not get paid does not automatically means the result of work for hire belongs to you. If you are a contractor this is a smart thing to explicitly stipulate in the contract.

Also NAL, but my understanding is that if no "consideration" (something of value) changes hands, the contract is null and void. This is why people sell things for $1 instead of giving them away, or why executives take $1 salaries instead of working for free. Thus, if he really never received anything of value for the work, it's as if the contract never happened, and ownership of the IP remains with the person who created it.

It probably is better to explicitly stipulate this in the contract, to avoid any misunderstandings or protracted legal battles.

Re: I didn't get paid, so I open-sourced my client’s project

#20

Post by based2 »

coldtea wrote: post #15
verisimilitudes wrote: post #3

I find it odd that the license is MIT here. Since he ultimately wrote this gratis, that license means his client could easily return and use it gratis, whereas a license such as AGPLv3 would help ensure he'd actually get paid if this client decided it wanted to use it again.

> whereas a license such as AGPLv3 would help ensure he'd actually get paid if this client decided it wanted to use it again. a) So would any competitor to the client. b) The client can use the AGPLv3 version gratis too, even if they modify it, as it will be on their own server anyway.

-> GPL
Post reply on HN