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

221–230 of 259 posts

Re: An apology to open source

#223

Post by DannyBee »

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.

Undergrad or post-doc?

If post-doc, humorously, in this day and age, this would likely mean the university owns it, rather than the employer.

Undergrad, a number of universities have started having students sign agreements giving them rights, but most don't.

Re: An apology to open source

#226

Post by napoleond »

jessaustin wrote: post #218

Where's the apology? I'm just seeing general info about chartjs. Maybe there has been a change of heart?

Hooray! It would appear so. An hour ago, Nick was apologising for removing the project, as there was apparently an ownership conflict with his employer.

Re: An apology to open source

#227

Post by DannyBee »

TomGullen wrote: post #118
analog wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!)

Speaking as an IP lawyer, this has been enforced many times.

Re: An apology to open source

#228

Post by DannyBee »

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…

Note: If the employer actually has a claim to it, destroying it would be a very bad idea.

Re: An apology to open source

#229

Post by jbrooksuk »

nnnnnick wrote: post #220

I'd misunderstood some of the issues I wrote about earlier in regard to the library. It is now back online for good, licensed under MIT. Sorry for all this kerfuffle.

I don't intend to be rude or anything, but how can you misunderstand your employer asking you to remove the library? They either did or they didn't?

Re: An apology to open source

#230

Post by incongruity »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #184
fakeer wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nick's words: It had been my final year university project I had been working on for a couple of months

Often that means that the university claims rights in the IP produced, certainly [way back] when I matriculated it was required of all students to sign a waiver giving rights to the Uni for any works created whilst being a student. The first I heard about it was at the matriculation table when I'd already gone up. Perhaps this sort of thing doesn't happen elsewhere or as been deemed inappropriate.

That isn't/wasn't the case at either of my undergrad or graduate institutions – in fact, at my graduate program, the official policy on student work is that it is ours and if a team project, we all had non-exclusive rights to the work.

Just a small anecdotal datapoint.

Post reply on HN