Live data from Hacker News

Bumble claims IP rights on employee's open-source libs

twitter.com

241–250 of 339 posts

Re: Bumble claims IP rights on employee's open-source libs

#241
What's the status of the license on this? The author made it Apache, but Bumble is making claims on it because of the employee's contract. It wasn't the employee's to release in the first place (as per the contract), but once it's out there, did the employee essentially open source it as an rogue agent of the company? At the same time, a Microsoft employee can't open source Windows and just say "oops."

As a developer using open source code, how can you ever have enough certainty that an open source project won't run into issues like this?

Re: Bumble claims IP rights on employee's open-source libs

#242
post #228

This thing has been bugging me the first time signed an employment contract years ago. So from what I understand is that everything I do on conpany property (that includes coding in a pub but on the company laptop) belongs to the company. So what I do is to first code it (any new idea that I'm working on) at home on my personal setup (including cloud an all). Then I release everything on a Apache V2 + MIT combo with…

It depends on the exact wording of your employment contract.

If it only covers work you did with company property, you're lucky.

As far as the law goes, in California (per Labor Code section 2870), employment agreements are allowed to assign the employer IP rights (including copyrights and patent rights) to inventions that satisfy any of the following:

- "[Use] the employer’s equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information"

- "Result from any work performed by the employee for the employer"

- "Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer’s business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer"

For my part, the employment contract I signed is maximalist: it basically paraphrases the above language and says that anything satisfying any of those conditions is assigned to my employer.

The third condition is really the kicker. If you want to use your code at work, then the code probably "relates to" your employer's "business" or "actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development". If your employment contract is as maximalist as mine (and there's a good chance it is), then that's enough to make it not yours, regardless of who (if anyone) forked it.

In my case, my employer is large enough that it's hard to imagine software that doesn't somehow relate to its business…

Re: Bumble claims IP rights on employee's open-source libs

#243
post #228

This thing has been bugging me the first time signed an employment contract years ago. So from what I understand is that everything I do on conpany property (that includes coding in a pub but on the company laptop) belongs to the company. So what I do is to first code it (any new idea that I'm working on) at home on my personal setup (including cloud an all). Then I release everything on a Apache V2 + MIT combo with…

Your example is foolproof, but there's always a bigger fool? How do you prove that your commits weren't made on company time? How do you prove that they weren't made on company laptops? How do you prove that you didn't include trade-secrets in your implementation of these libraries?

You can show that your commits were made at hours outside of office hours, you can show that the commits were made with your personal e-mail address, but lawyers can dispute it - Git commits are cryptographic proof only that someone (or if you signed them, someone with access to that private key) attested to those statements, and you do both those things on the company computers. You can show that all of the code is obvious, but lawyers can dispute it. A sufficiently foolish lawyer can dispute literally anything.

Don't work for places where you'd have a problem with this - Get explicit approval for you to spend company time working on open source libraries that are the proprietary interest of the company, but that you as an individual have a copyleft license to (Iff you don't care that you can't take them private later). Or work for a company that doesn't have such onerous terms in their employment contract.

Re: Bumble claims IP rights on employee's open-source libs

#244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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. 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 cou…

[deleted]

Re: Bumble claims IP rights on employee's open-source libs

#245
post #228

This thing has been bugging me the first time signed an employment contract years ago. So from what I understand is that everything I do on conpany property (that includes coding in a pub but on the company laptop) belongs to the company. So what I do is to first code it (any new idea that I'm working on) at home on my personal setup (including cloud an all). Then I release everything on a Apache V2 + MIT combo with…

... Yeah I don't understand this at all, and I'm not going to try. Ever since my employer's started putting in that IP clause I stopped writing public/open-source code.

You can still do it in your mom's name, iykwim... but yeah such "shower clauses" are an abomination.

Re: Bumble claims IP rights on employee's open-source libs

#246
On a related note, always be careful to look at the documents that come with things like stock grants that you may receive in addition to salary. There is frequently this same kind of legal language there which may not have been in the original employment contract you signed.

My current company operates this way. The employment contract was pretty generic and didn't really have much IP-related language in it. But the first stock grant had a document that was quite a lot more specific. Fortunately nothing as onerous as described in this Twitter post, but still, it was good that I read all the documents before accepting the grant.

Re: Bumble claims IP rights on employee's open-source libs

#248
post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have the same problem with terms of service. Someone wants something (salary, product) and all that registers is “I can have it if I sign/accept”. The only way to fix these things would be for some sort of organization (union) to exist that puts pressure on the industry, or legal simplification/ground rules protecting generally people’s rights.

Not the only way. California and Washington have legal protections for employees. IP you create outside working hours, on your own hardware, and wholly unrelated to your job, is your own.

The question becomes what is wholly unrelated. If I'm hired to program, some might argue that any code I write is not wholly unrelated to my work.

Re: Bumble claims IP rights on employee's open-source libs

#249

The internet is quick to grab the pitchfork but it looks like there's a different story here. If you compare arkann1985's MVIKotlin vs badoo/MVICore it's an understatement to say it was "inspired by". It looks like an almost identical clone. And as others have pointed out, it's not like Bumble is going after all of this guy's projects, just the ones where he was "inspired by" company work. It would be difficult to ar…

so? it's apache licensed, so that doesn't really change anything

Re: Bumble claims IP rights on employee's open-source libs

#250
post #228

This thing has been bugging me the first time signed an employment contract years ago. So from what I understand is that everything I do on conpany property (that includes coding in a pub but on the company laptop) belongs to the company. So what I do is to first code it (any new idea that I'm working on) at home on my personal setup (including cloud an all). Then I release everything on a Apache V2 + MIT combo with…

Your example is foolproof, but there's always a bigger fool? How do you prove that your commits weren't made on company time? How do you prove that they weren't made on company laptops? How do you prove that you didn't include trade-secrets in your implementation of these libraries? You can show that your commits were made at hours outside of office hours, you can show that the commits were made with your personal e-…

yeah... somebody needs to always make sure not to be the bigger fool...

1) Git commits have timestamps. 2) Proving I did on company laptop is their onus. Innocent until proven guilty. ;-P 3) I do that. Along with randomisation of sample data. but yeah, you make a very important point in general. 99% of people get screwed on such things. 4) If I do something using company laptop, it is bound to be logged somewhere. All my git visits are also logged and archived for 10 years as per law. So proving I did it using company laptop is easy and it is them who have to prove it. And a foolish lawyer is a dream come true because then I can keep dismissing his every argument as wasting the learned court's time.

But yes, keeping things straight forward is always a better idea.

Post reply on HN