Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An apology to open source

chartjs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 259 posts

Re: An apology to open source

#91

Post by nevinera »

scotty79 wrote: post #82
nevinera wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he's working in the US, then debatably yes. Though 'jurisdiction' isn't the right word. Work performed by an employee during the course of operations is considered 'work for hire', and is the intellectual property of the employer. If he then goes on to replicate a large quantity of that work 'on his own time', he is most likely infringing on that work that he previously did (unless he's very careful about it. Sinc…

What if that's the other way around? He wrote something for himself and at later time was hired and did some work for company and that work was based on his previous work that he had all copyright for. Wouldn't company had no right to use the code that he wrote for them because it would mean infringing on his copyright, or copyright of his mom if he sold the rights to the original software to her?

I'm not a lawyer, and the rules get messy - I'd need to do at least a few hours of research to answer you with any confidence. The type of stuff you're talking about is not addressed by the code itself, it's tangled up in case law, which is the reason that lawyers go to school forever.

Personally, I would write that 'previous work' as a library, open-source it, and then use the library at the company later. That's clearly safe.

Re: An apology to open source

#92

Post by kawsper »

creature wrote: post #64
kawsper wrote: 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.

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…

> 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.

The problem was also that we had two legal documents, the contract, and the "house"-rules. The contract just stated that "The contract refers and includes the house-rules".

It would require a lot of rework for them to rewrite my contract so only the part about ownership of code was amended, but all the other house-rules still applied.

It was my first job after finishing school, and the place was nice, and I figured it wouldn't be a problem, but I was wrong, and it kept irritating me.

Re: An apology to open source

#93

Post by masukomi »

creature wrote: post #64
kawsper wrote: 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.

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…

Yeah, many places will offer you exclusions on pre-existing work and offer you the ability to add to the list of excluded works later on. As long as you're not working on anything that's competitive they're usually fine with it. I won't take a job that won't allow me to keep working on my own projects.

Re: An apology to open source

#94

Post by stdbrouw »

readme wrote: post #83
noonespecial wrote: post #17

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…

Oh man, that is some serious proliterian rage. I have to wonder: why is it that someone thinks they can retroactively demand overtime pay for work that wasn't agreed in advance? As a contractor, I really don't understand this attitude.

If they want it, they pay. If they don't want it, don't pay, but don't get it either. Isn't that how you work as a contractor too? And doesn't that apply regardless of whether the work was agreed on in advance?

Re: An apology to open source

#95

Post by qw »

etfb wrote: post #57
jre wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> or using knowledge I'd gained directly from working for them

I wouldn't be comfortable with that. If you have gained knowledge on Redis, you should be able to use Redis in a personal project. It would be different if you had developed a super secret ranking algorithm that you later re-implemented in another project.

Re: An apology to open source

#96

Post by Nursie »

ayanb wrote: post #29

An 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…

They may be a very good employer.

This may have been uncomfortably close to his closed-source day-job.

Without details we don't know.

And eventually everyone moves on. Company loyalty is dead.

Re: An apology to open source

#98

Post by arethuza »

aprescott wrote: post #86
arethuza wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even IP created outside of work?

Unless an employee contract says otherwise, the default copyright position is that all work done is part of "work-for-hire".[1] There are a few reasons for this, and Joel Spolsky covered them pretty well.[2] [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire [2]: http://answers.onstartups.com/questions/19422/if-im-working-...

Every employment contract I have had (I'm not in the US and, I think, neither is crazysaem) has had rather a lot to say about copyright and IP - not all of which might be enforceable in a court (I have had lawyers look at contracts).
Post reply on HN