NVD3, a d3.js reusable chart library, was taken down by Novus several months ago. At first they asked all the GitHub forks to close down. Eventually, after an outcry on the d3-js Google Group, Hacker News, and other forums, Novus relented and re-released the library with this statement:
An apology to open source
61–70 of 259 posts
Re: An apology to open source
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the OP 'Sadly though, due to concerns from my employer regarding intellectual property and similarities in projects I've worked on, I've been asked to take down the site.' We have no way of assessing the validity of these concerns from what has been said. If the company feels the open source project contains work they have funded, and don't want to release, then it is their right to ask him to withdraw it. Also,…
Nobody argued that it is not their right. Of course it is, or Nick would have left it up at Github. It's their right, but it's not "right".
I think it's more of a grey area than that. Certainly I can imagine a situation where the overlap was insignificant and this was an overreach by the employer, but there is currently no evidence to suggest that.
Re: An apology to open source
#63An open note to Nick's Employers - 1) If you are a technology company, this is Harakiri ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku ). You are alienating every developer who is worth her salt. If you have a recruiting arm, and they are trying to recruit, god be with them. Ofcourse, you think people will never come to know, but this has the potential to be a good story and press will pick it up. I will not be surprised if…
plus it's javascript for christ's sake? the best they can do is obfuscate it.
Re: An apology to open source
#64This shows the shitty policy that most companies have. They use open source internally and give nothing back.
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.
I've encountered this clause in a few employment contracts. It seems to be becoming standard language, but you don't have to agree to it. A contract's a starting point for negotiation, not something set in stone. If you don't want your side projects owned by the company, then ask for the clause to be removed/amended.
One place said they couldn't amend the contract, but wrote that they had no interest in code I wrote outside of work. A lawyer friend said that was close enough to be a contract amendment and I needed the job, so I signed. Another place happily amended it so they only owned what I made on company time with company resources. Problem solved in an amicable way.
Re: An apology to open source
#65There 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.
That's true if and only if he didn't continue to refine and contribute to the code after entering employment, and specifically, didn't use it at his place of employment.
Many places have terrible and unhealthy, but legally binding contracts regarding work done in your own time while employed. :(
Without more information we can't know, but its far from given that their position is legally ambiguous.
Re: An apology to open source
#66Does the company have any jurisdiction over what appears to be Nick's own project? This really sounds ridiculous.
Pretty much the run of the mill employment contract will claim ownership of an employees creations, most regardless of whether that creation has anything to do with their every day activities. Some go so far as to claim all creations related to their discipline, even if conducted outside work hours. The problem is simply that its too hard to challenge if such an issue ever arose. Any decent business wouldn't just cla…
Well in the contract with my current employer, it pretty much states that every IP I create during my employment belongs to my employer.
So if I wanted to create a project that I own, I would have to terminate my contract first. This is especially annoying being a Student and having many ideas all the time. Oh well.
Re: An apology to open source
#67This shows the shitty policy that most companies have. They use open source internally and give nothing back.
They are not required to give back. If you find that wrong, there are licenses you can use to enforce that. The licensing of code is your chance to say what you expect. Expecting them to do more is a "shitty policy." You can hope. But being angry that you failed to sell the value of contributing back to your particular project is silly.
Re: An apology to open source
#68I made a backup of it for personal use. https://github.com/danielsamuels/chart-js Documentation (basic, no CSS): http://danielsamuels.github.com/chart-js/
it's almost like the internet has no delete button
Re: An apology to open source
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the OP 'Sadly though, due to concerns from my employer regarding intellectual property and similarities in projects I've worked on, I've been asked to take down the site.' We have no way of assessing the validity of these concerns from what has been said. If the company feels the open source project contains work they have funded, and don't want to release, then it is their right to ask him to withdraw it. Also,…
Nobody argued that it is not their right. Of course it is, or Nick would have left it up at Github. It's their right, but it's not "right".
One could also say that in this case, Nick should have discussed this with the employer. It seems as if he was aware he should have, and by not doing so, the situation is no worse off than it would have been.
Re: An apology to open source
#70An open note to Nick's Employers - 1) If you are a technology company, this is Harakiri ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku ). You are alienating every developer who is worth her salt. If you have a recruiting arm, and they are trying to recruit, god be with them. Ofcourse, you think people will never come to know, but this has the potential to be a good story and press will pick it up. I will not be surprised if…
From the OP 'Sadly though, due to concerns from my employer regarding intellectual property and similarities in projects I've worked on, I've been asked to take down the site.' We have no way of assessing the validity of these concerns from what has been said. If the company feels the open source project contains work they have funded, and don't want to release, then it is their right to ask him to withdraw it. Also,…
Was he also asked by his employer to take down his "final year university project" that this was supposed to be? That sounds a little bit incongruous to me. Or was the "final year university project" also somehow related to his job output preceding in the creation of said final year project?