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

111–120 of 259 posts

Re: An apology to open source

#111

Post by nevinera »

phpnode wrote: post #36
nevinera wrote: post #19

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…

> 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…

I agree that it's worth bringing up, though investigating yourself is likely more accurate (if they haven't released any open projects previously, I'd be hesitant to believe their newfound commitment to the cause).

But it's not really something they can honestly negotiate with - they can't commit to releasing anything until they can see what it is, and how likely it is to help their competitors.

Re: An apology to open source

#112

Post by keefe »

readme wrote: post #77
keefe wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

plus it's javascript for christ's sake? the best they can do is obfuscate it.

Obfuscation is more than enough to protect the code. You need only to make the cost of ripping it off greater than or equal to the cost of creating it. IP is so much more than the code. It's the concepts, the graphics, everything.

I don't think so at all,even without trying to reverse it you can inspect the DOM and debug the event flow etc. I think "construction is more difficult than verification" is a good adage for engineering. JS/CSS is transmitted in the clear and it should move towards open source, plus it's not hugely valuable. Now, if this guy was doing projects at work to do charting and then he decides to open source that on his own? Not cool, you need to make your personal projects clear to your employers to avoid this nonsense. That being said if it was just charts and it was my company and he managed to get press on it... I'd probably give him a bit of a lecture about it and then probably a raise and continue it as open source.

Re: An apology to open source

#113

Post by rmc »

aneth4 wrote: post #53
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…

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.

Overtime doesn't apply to white collar workers.

Maybe in places like USA which has very poor employment law. However in the EU there isn't really that distinction, and employment law applies to all employees.

Re: An apology to open source

#114

Post by rmc »

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…

Make it clear that OSHA will be involved if they decline.

I'm not sure, but I think the author lives in the UK. OSHA appears to be some USA thing. But this is good for the author. The EU has better employee law.

Re: An apology to open source

#115

Post by facorreia »

nevinera wrote: post #41
yen223 wrote: post #23

Does the company have any jurisdiction over what appears to be Nick's own project? This really sounds ridiculous.

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…

As a non-American, that concept is very alien to me. Say, if a burger-flipping cook at a fast-food joint cooks burgers for himself and a few friends at home, is he infringing? Are those burgers company property? Baffled...

Re: An apology to open source

#116

Post by analog »

arethuza wrote: post #101
analog wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, but he's based in the UK, so the 'we own all your IP' thing doesn't apply here. On company time yes, in your own time I believe not. Your own time would not be "in the course of his or her employment." http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-ownership/c-employer.htm

I've seen employment contracts in the UK that try the "own time" thing - these are probably not enforceable, but you probably wouldn't want to go through the process of putting that to the test.

Yup, you'd want to strike out any clauses like that before you signed any employment contract that had them in.

Re: An apology to open source

#118

Post by TomGullen »

analog wrote: post #59
mseebach wrote: post #49

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.

In a lot of Universities, depending on what course you do, this means the University has a share in it. (Although I've never seen this enforced!)

Re: An apology to open source

#120

Post by nevinera »

facorreia wrote: post #115
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…

As a non-American, that concept is very alien to me. Say, if a burger-flipping cook at a fast-food joint cooks burgers for himself and a few friends at home, is he infringing? Are those burgers company property? Baffled...

No, burgers aren't "intellectual property". If he wrote the burger-flipping manual for work, and then wrote another one and published it online, he'd have more of a problem.

And yes, the entire concept of IP is on the strange side and needs some dramatic revisions, I'd agree.

Post reply on HN