211–220 of 339 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, this is part of California law. I forget the url, but if you google for it, it is less than one page. You can just print it out and bring it with you and say “FAANG does this, and I expect it as well”
Could you (or anyone) please post it? I'm not even sure what phrase to Google for
It's easy to grab the pitchfork, I hate that contract clause as all of you do, but without clear information on the above this case could go either way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And often, software is similar. That only holds if the side-project is exactly what the company does, and even then it’s debatable: if a person is interested in problem X and has personal projects around X, and the company hires them because if that, do they really expect that person to stop being interested in X on a personal level?
It’s often sufficient if the general field of work matches, though to a varying degree. > if a person is interested in problem X and has personal projects around X, and the company hires them because if that, do they really expect that person to stop being interested in X on a personal level? This is exactly where you start entering a problematic grey area. The employer hired and pays the employee exactly to gain acc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not OP, but here's the exact words from the contract: >You will give the Company full written details of all Inventions and of all works embodying Intellectual Property Rights made wholly or partially by You at any time during the course of Your Employment (whether or not during working hours or using Company premises or resources) which relate to, or are reasonably capable of being used in, the business of the Compa…
This is great, Thank You! "which relate to, or are reasonably capable of being used in, the business of the Company or any Group Company" sounds like a good phrasing to me, especially the "business" part of it as I interpret it to be the company simply wanting you to not build a competing product while employed there (a fair thing to have in a contract). For reference, this is what my last contract had: https://news.…
What matters is how a judge will interpret it, if it should become an issue.
A note to Bumble, this makes me not want to work for you or anyone who is currently in a related leadership position at Bumble (ie: eng leadership, etc.). Given the lack of supply in engineering the bad publicity is going to cost you more than any miniscule gain. edit: And I don't even publish OSS anymore but if you're willing to go after an employee for something this petty what else would you go after them for.
> but if you're willing to go after an employee for something this petty After reading more closely, it appears both repos are derivative works of pojects that Bumble (aka Badoo) owns. It says so in the README.md. They were also written while the author was employed by Badoo/Bumble. I don't think this is as clear-cut in favor of the developer as the comments would suggest.
That is how Open Source is supposed to work, I don't understand why everyone is thinking that this is some kind of huge discovery. Since both the MVICore and MVIKotlin repos are Apache 2.0, Badoo could simply pull in any improvements from MVIKotlin in if they wanted. They could ask their ex-employee if there was any interest in Badoo officially maintaining the project.
There are about ten other paths I could suggest that go with how OSS projects can and should work. None of them involve sending legal notices to your former employees to "transfer" the repos.
All I'm seeing here is that some person at Badoo/Bumble with little knowledge of how OSS works and a lot of lawyer time to throw around has made this move, and lost them a lot of goodwill from potential future employees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, this is part of California law. I forget the url, but if you google for it, it is less than one page. You can just print it out and bring it with you and say “FAANG does this, and I expect it as well”
Could you (or anyone) please post it? I'm not even sure what phrase to Google for
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what is to be owned in case of (a) and (b)? at the most extreme (a) means that you are opening an issue in the name of the company. the question then is: were you allowed to do that? (many contracts forbid you to speak in the name if the company unless explicitly instructed) and (b) would mean that you contributed a company resource to the project (namely you contributed yourself, your knowledge, etc), but it is the…
Copyright is not likely to subsist in a one or two line bug fix. There isn't enough creativity involved.
A note to Bumble, this makes me not want to work for you or anyone who is currently in a related leadership position at Bumble (ie: eng leadership, etc.). Given the lack of supply in engineering the bad publicity is going to cost you more than any miniscule gain. edit: And I don't even publish OSS anymore but if you're willing to go after an employee for something this petty what else would you go after them for.
Open source means the code is available it doesn’t mean you have the license to use it and that is dependent on the license Your stance is basically akin to viewing source of a paid javascript template site and taking all the js because its all in plain text
No, that's not what the term means. This has cropped up several times before on HN:
Many years ago I had a job offer at Badoo in the UK. After many rounds of going back-and-forth with the contract, me trying to better understand certain clauses, them going back to the lawyers, etc. I told them I'd be happy to sign if they removed the caluses that stated pretty much anything I created on or off hours belonged to them. They went back to the lawyers and came back to me saying that this is not the first…
I said hell to the no. I was prepared to walk out rather than sign that.
Thankfully they drew up another contract om the spot with that bit removed. Not so thankfully, they dropped me before I could actually prove myself (about 3 weeks) so I might've pissed someone off.
Under UK law your employer arguably has a claim to your IP if any of the following are true: 1) They asked you to work on this as part of your employment 2) You worked on this during your employed hours 3) You worked on this on employer provided equipment If you can prove that this is an undertaking of your own (especially if it pre-dates employment) and you avoid doing any work (not even replying to Git issues) duri…