Live data from Hacker News

An apology to open source

chartjs.org

31–40 of 259 posts

Re: An apology to open source

#31
post #14
post #4

Mirror?

I was able to find at least 3 extant forks on Github, but the fact that the project author's employer was concerned about IP rights would make me wary about using such code. If the author "borrowed" similar code from work he previously did from the employer, it is likely that the MIT license of chart.js is invalid.

Odds are that it was a Disney-like situation: anything that you create while employed by Disney automatically becomes property of Disney.

Re: An apology to open source

#32
post #12

That's a shame. This serves as a reminder to us all to be very careful when signing employment contracts. We're fortunate enough to be in an industry with huge demand for talent at the moment, so in addition to salary / benefits, things like having the right to open source your work should be included in your negotiations. In my experience, most good companies are OK with it.

>This serves as a reminder to us all to be very careful when signing employment contracts. If he was a full-time employee in the US, a contract wouldn't be necessary for this to be an issue. All work done by an employee on company time or using company resources is 'work for hire' (a term often misused in the software contracting industry, where it rarely applies), and that IP belongs to the company. >In my experienc…

I'd like to know about your business - if only because I'm interested in working in this field. Can you share any info about your employer?

Re: An apology to open source

#33
post #27
post #5

The real question is, what kind of employer shuts down a project like this, cutting themselves off from useful contributions by other people?

A normal employer with a normal-world mindset. This is their competitive advantage and they're keeping it for themselves - even though they didn't (in his reading) buy the original code he wrote. Sad, but a fact of life if you deal with businesses.

and dinosaurs will die

Re: An apology to open source

#34

Don't just take it down. Destroy it. Make sure that any benefit your employer was receiving from it vanishes. If they claim ownership, despite the work having been done in your free time, demand the overtime pay. Make it clear that OSHA will be involved if they decline. Hardline dickery deservers to be repaid in kind. Ah: Edit still available: Destroy was the wrong word. Make inaccessible to everyone, including the e…

That's not 'hardline dickery'.

The company didn't get a lawyer involved and force him to take it down, they expressed concern - the author apparently agrees that it's related or similar to work he did while an employee, or there would have been a bit more argument than "oh, ok".

What you're proposing would of course be fine - the company isn't claiming 'ownership' of that code, just suggesting that it might be infringing. But I don't get the impression that they're using that charting library, just similar code written by the same author. They wouldn't be hurt by that at all.

Re: An apology to open source

#35
Get some advice on how to handle this. I know plenty of lawyers who'd gladly spend a few minutes listening to your story and giving you some "unofficial" advice (by that I mean that unless you actually pay them, they won't write a letter or represent you - you're stuck implementing that advice yourself.)

I'd wager this was a threat from an immediate manager. Go over his head. Explain you did this as coursework. Have someone explain the company's view of these "similarities" - Just because their app sorts entries in a table on an iPad doesn't mean publishing that sort.js you built in class is an IP problem. See if they'd be willing to generate some goodwill amongst the OSS community by allowing you to put chart.js back online.

DO NOT SIMPLY ROLL OVER.

And if you get stonewalled, these are probably not the kind of people you want to work with. Start looking for a new job. Don't fear for this one. Programmers, developers, software engineers (pick your flavor) are in high demand.

Re: An apology to open source

#36
post #12

That's a shame. This serves as a reminder to us all to be very careful when signing employment contracts. We're fortunate enough to be in an industry with huge demand for talent at the moment, so in addition to salary / benefits, things like having the right to open source your work should be included in your negotiations. In my experience, most good companies are OK with it.

>This serves as a reminder to us all to be very careful when signing employment contracts. If he was a full-time employee in the US, a contract wouldn't be necessary for this to be an issue. All work done by an employee on company time or using company resources is 'work for hire' (a term often misused in the software contracting industry, where it rarely applies), and that IP belongs to the company. >In my experienc…

> If he was a full-time employee in the US, a contract wouldn't be necessary for this to be an issue.

Right, but you can still address this when you're negotiating the terms of your employment.

> Certainly most companies will not grant you a blanket right to open source all of your work for them

agreed, but many companies will be ok with open sourcing individual components, especially if it's done so under their name.

My point is this is another tool for you to use at negotiation time when they've reached a limit on price / other benefits.

Re: An apology to open source

#38

Don't just take it down. Destroy it. Make sure that any benefit your employer was receiving from it vanishes. If they claim ownership, despite the work having been done in your free time, demand the overtime pay. Make it clear that OSHA will be involved if they decline. Hardline dickery deservers to be repaid in kind. Ah: Edit still available: Destroy was the wrong word. Make inaccessible to everyone, including the e…

That's not 'hardline dickery'. The company didn't get a lawyer involved and force him to take it down, they expressed concern - the author apparently agrees that it's related or similar to work he did while an employee, or there would have been a bit more argument than "oh, ok". What you're proposing would of course be fine - the company isn't claiming 'ownership' of that code, just suggesting that it might be infrin…

...my fault, should of A-OK'ed everything before putting it online. Didn't expect anywhere near that sort of reaction though. (from the author's twitter feed)

Sounds kinda fierce to me. I suspect if he'd refused, lawyers wouldn't be far behind. Perhaps I'm just jaded. I've seen some pretty egregious overstepping by companies in my time.

I'm still calling it a dick move. A great deal of what makes him valuable to them, he likely learned at home doing this sort of thing. He may even be driving the product's direction somewhat with his personal exploration.

Re: An apology to open source

#39
Its worth remembering that the conflict might not be to the company's activities, but rather, to activities performed for a client. Some clients may be substantially upset if they feel that they have paid for development, to have that development later released as open-source. Of course there would be no reason to assume Chart.js reuses client's code, and the developer not have even worked on any projects with the company yet, but the challenges of convincing a client might not be worth the stress.

Re: An apology to open source

#40

I made a backup of it for personal use. https://github.com/danielsamuels/chart-js Documentation (basic, no CSS): http://danielsamuels.github.com/chart-js/

forked and cloned

I just added the original documentation to the master repo, you may want to grab that too.
Post reply on HN