11–20 of 30 posts
I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is: The company owns the code but has given permission to use it as specified in the license. Fortunately, the MIT license is very permissive. You thus have their permission to do a lot. You don't have rights, you have a license. You may have signed an employment contract that puts limitations on what you can do. I wouldn't hesitate to fork a MIT licensed project, but your other…
Other than that, the MIT license itself should allow you to use it commercially no problem.
You wrote a piece of code while employed. The rights went automatically to the employer, because work for hire.
The employer releases the code under a permissive license on their Github. To everyone.
You don't see any exceptions in the text of the license. The license says that as long as the license and copyright notices are preserved, any rando in the world can do whatever they please with that code. "Any rando" includes but is not limited to: their competitors, the maniac next block who's out to get them, the police, ICE, Hamas terrorists, maybe even their own mothers-in-law. But they don't care, they released it. Period.
Yet somehow you (and a good half of the commenters) imply that there's maybe some unwritten clause that specifically denies the license grant to you, the freaking author of said code, specifically, even though it's not there in the license text.
The mere existence of such thought, and the number of people who subscribe to it, is sickening me to no end. I loathe their filthy minds.
If it matters, you need to hire a lawyer. Suppose your former employer claims that you acted in bad faith when proposing the MIT license? It doesn't matter if you did or didn't. Your former employer probably has deeper pockets for hiring lawyers.
If you're looking to start a real business, paying lawyers is part of it. This won't hinge on general principles. It will hinge on specifics and the degree of good will involved.
Good luck.
Let me get this straight. You wrote a piece of code while employed. The rights went automatically to the employer, because work for hire. The employer releases the code under a permissive license on their Github. To everyone. You don't see any exceptions in the text of the license. The license says that as long as the license and copyright notices are preserved, any rando in the world can do whatever they please with…
This is licenses and contracts, not theory. It's lawyers and cowboying up.
IANAL but unless there is some exception to the MIT license the ability to be able to do so is the license’s entire point. However if I understand correctly the license only applies to code. Any assets should either be covered by a separate license or in the case there isn’t one the employer retains copyright.
That said, as others are trying to point out, there may be other issues that are NOT related to the code. You may have restrictions in which field you work and for what client. In this case your employer must approve your employment elsewhere and if they prevent it they must pay a significant portion of your salary until you find a suitable different employer in a different field (at least that's what my contract says but I am European so it might be different in the States).
Anyway, the simple case of using the code is allowed to you under MIT license.
Let me get this straight. You wrote a piece of code while employed. The rights went automatically to the employer, because work for hire. The employer releases the code under a permissive license on their Github. To everyone. You don't see any exceptions in the text of the license. The license says that as long as the license and copyright notices are preserved, any rando in the world can do whatever they please with…
If the OP created the entire project, it is possible they chose the MIT license. There's the potential for the employer to claim bad faith. Particularly if the OP was not an agent of the company. This is licenses and contracts, not theory. It's lawyers and cowboying up.
Let me get this straight. You wrote a piece of code while employed. The rights went automatically to the employer, because work for hire. The employer releases the code under a permissive license on their Github. To everyone. You don't see any exceptions in the text of the license. The license says that as long as the license and copyright notices are preserved, any rando in the world can do whatever they please with…
If the OP created the entire project, it is possible they chose the MIT license. There's the potential for the employer to claim bad faith. Particularly if the OP was not an agent of the company. This is licenses and contracts, not theory. It's lawyers and cowboying up.
If it were me, I'd say that the license files should be _authored_ by someone in the company who has a say on such matters. Come on, if it's work for hire, the copyrights by default don't belong to you, so you don't go licensing it left and right, it's your employer's prerogative!