Live data from Hacker News

An apology to open source

chartjs.org

51–60 of 259 posts

Re: An apology to open source

#51
post #30
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I have been working for Rails shop that did exactly this. I wasn't able to do anything, not even in my spare time, to contribute to open-source projects or do other work. The other work I can understand, because I could help a competitor for an example. But that they owned ownership for every line of code written by me, even on my time off, was killing my inspiration.

Is this even legal ? In Switzerland, I don't think an employer can claim ownership of a piece of work that was produced on the employee spare time (and on his own computer and so on).

By my understanding it certainly isn't legally enforceable in the UK. It isn't actually illegal to have such a clause in the contract, but if it were to come to court it would be thrown out as an unreasonable clause.

The problem from the employee's point of view though is that it may have to come to court before the employer will back down and there are costs in terms of money, time, and relationships associated with that especially if the company goes for the appeal cycle afterwards. Most individuals can't afford the time or cost of such a case (though costs are likely to be recovered from the company eventually, you need to find the funds up front) if it comes to that, and the software industry can be fairly judgemental and nepotistic so it'll be hard work getting a new job (once life becomes unpleasant at the old one due to the court case) now you have a reputation for being difficult. These considerations are why individuals back down quickly, as the assume the conversation will go:

    Company:    We own that.
    Individual: No you don't.
    Company:    Contract says so.
    Individual: You can't enforce that.
    Company:    We can try. Wanna fight?
    Individual: Er, no. Here, take it.
Companies know the clause is not legally enforceable, but they have it in there because they know it generally doesn't have to be as most people will not argue as far as the legal status of the clause being relevant (in fact most people don't even know that it isn't legally enforceable). This is particularly the case for younger people or those otherwise near the start of their career.

Most non-compete clauses are in a similar legal position.

Re: An apology to open source

#53

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…

Overtime doesn't apply to white collar workers.

I've not heard of OSHA being involved in employer IP issues, nor in any software engineering environment.

Destroying something the company claims as their IP would subject someone to some serious criminal and civil liability.

Also, if the guy didn't like his job, he'd probably find another one. I get the sense he wants to keep this one and maintain a civil employment.

Re: An apology to open source

#54
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

Definitely! Emcien (from mCn - we deal with a lot of combinatoric problems) is focused on analysis of large-scale data by constructing and operating on relationship graphs of tokens within that data.

We use Rails pretty heavily for presentation, though our apps have been leaning more and more on Backbone.js, and most of the core science is performed in some C code largely written by one of the founders, O.R. prof Roy Marsten.

The business/marketing site is at emcien.com, and the (fairly new) engineering blog is at engineering.emcien.com. Management sadly isn't interested in long-term remote devs yet - we're in Atlanta, GA. It's a great environment though, in the sweet-spot between risky startup and heavy corporate work.

Re: An apology to open source

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"What you're proposing would of course be fine" Not if the company are claiming ownership (even in the vaguest of ways) of the code and think there is some value in it - in that case "destroying" it could be a remarkably bad thing to do. [NB I have been involved in litigation over ownership of code and although we were 100% in the right it was an appallingly stressful experence - mostly because logic seemed to go com…

Destroy might not mean quite what I'd hoped in this context. I more meant make completely inaccesible to everyone. If the employer claims exclusive ownership, require the overtime pay before you allow them to benefit from it again.

No matter what you signed as an employee, OSHA(1) has rules about how long you are required to work without overtime. Its a clever end run I've seen used around "we own everything you do at any time" BS that employment contracts often have in them. Yes, they may own it, but they will have to pay for the time taken to create it. Usually when faced with a big bill, thy decided it wasn't so important to own it after all.

(1) Sorry, that was dumb. OSHA just enforces some of these rules. The rules are actually The Fair Labor Standards Act.

Re: An apology to open source

#57
post #30
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I have been working for Rails shop that did exactly this. I wasn't able to do anything, not even in my spare time, to contribute to open-source projects or do other work. The other work I can understand, because I could help a competitor for an example. But that they owned ownership for every line of code written by me, even on my time off, was killing my inspiration.

Is this even legal ? In Switzerland, I don't think an employer can claim ownership of a piece of work that was produced on the employee spare time (and on his own computer and so on).

In Australia, I worked for a company that had what amounted to a "we own all your brainz" clause in their contract. I queried it, and they modified it: they owned anything I produced using their hardware, during paid time (excluding lunch breaks) or using knowledge I'd gained directly from working for them. Everything else, even stuff I did in the lunchroom using my laptop, was mine. The boss's son apparently agreed with me that the original clause was silly and may have been instrumental in getting his Dad to change it; or maybe the boss was just a reasonable guy. Actually, I think the latter is true. They were a good mob, and I was sad to leave.

Re: An apology to open source

#58
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I have been working for Rails shop that did exactly this. I wasn't able to do anything, not even in my spare time, to contribute to open-source projects or do other work. The other work I can understand, because I could help a competitor for an example. But that they owned ownership for every line of code written by me, even on my time off, was killing my inspiration.

>But that they owned ownership for every line of code written by me, even on my time off, was killing my inspiration. Where were you working? That's definitely not how US ip-law operates.

Working in Denmark. I took it up with my Union, and they said that I couldn't do anything about it.

The rule initially was made to own rights to images and articles from photographers and journalists, so they couldn't sell to third parties, but was extended to also include code.

Re: An apology to open source

#59

There are a lot of knee-jerk reactions here that may very well be completely justified - but the facts are that we don't know where Nick works and in what capacity. We can't know if there is legitimate concern over IP or competitive advantage here? It's unlikely, but for the sake of a thought experiment: What if Nick's employers sell a JS component that does the same+10% as chart.js? EDIT: Apparently he made it befor…

He built it during University, so before he started working for the employer. They may have a legitimate business concern, but that doesn't change the fact that it's Nick's IP and he can do what he wants with it.

Re: An apology to open source

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"What you're proposing would of course be fine" Not if the company are claiming ownership (even in the vaguest of ways) of the code and think there is some value in it - in that case "destroying" it could be a remarkably bad thing to do. [NB I have been involved in litigation over ownership of code and although we were 100% in the right it was an appallingly stressful experence - mostly because logic seemed to go com…

I am only guessing from the contents of the post, but it sounds like they were asserting possible infringement against his own previous work, not ownership of the library he developed on his own time. It is best to be careful though, I much agree.

They'd have a tough time proving ownership of that code unless he was also using it in one of their applications, but that crap can get very complicated.

Post reply on HN