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

241–250 of 259 posts

Re: An apology to open source

#241

Post by cube13 »

eslaught wrote: post #238
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is only true for graduate programs where the school is paying for your tuition via a research or teaching assistanceship. For undergraduates, who traditionally pay for their own tuition, or for graduate students under scholarship, they own all of their own work.

>For undergraduates, who traditionally pay for their own tuition, or for graduate students under scholarship, they own all of their own work.

This depends on what the work's being done for. If it's for a class or a credit giving research project, the university usually does own the IP in most cases.

However, if it's a side project that's not using any of the university's resources, the university shouldn't have any rights to it.

Re: An apology to open source

#242

Post by michaelbuddy »

hablahaha wrote: post #240
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My university owns anything you make while you are a student there. The example they used was something along the lines of: if you worked on it only in your dorm room and it had nothing to do with the university and received zero university funding, it was still theirs and you couldn't ever file a patent on it.

that doesn't really work.

Re: An apology to open source

#243

Post by scotty79 »

nevinera wrote: post #91
scotty79 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cl…

Considering copyright law is like counting angels that could dance at the head of the pin. I hope people will ditch it some day altogether.

Re: An apology to open source

#246

Post by rhizome »

hablahaha wrote: post #240
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My university owns anything you make while you are a student there. The example they used was something along the lines of: if you worked on it only in your dorm room and it had nothing to do with the university and received zero university funding, it was still theirs and you couldn't ever file a patent on it.

Your current university? Please do paste the relevant passages where this ownership is specified. Inquiring minds want to know!

Re: An apology to open source

#247

Post by pyrocat »

eslaught wrote: post #238
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is only true for graduate programs where the school is paying for your tuition via a research or teaching assistanceship. For undergraduates, who traditionally pay for their own tuition, or for graduate students under scholarship, they own all of their own work.

This wasn't the case at my school, as an undergrad.

Re: An apology to open source

#248

Post by rhizome »

jetti wrote: post #171
aneth4 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Not true. Software developers are mostly exempt, but there are some that will be non-exempt from overtime based on their salary. If the person makes less than $455 a week as salaried or less than $27.63 an hour as an hourly employeed then they will be non-exempt (http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/fairpay/fs17e_computer.htm). However, I have a feeling it would be h…

Last I checked, about 5 years ago in California, the salary cut off was much higher: $105K+.

Re: An apology to open source

#249

Post by nevinera »

pnathan wrote: post #198
nevinera wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Yes, yes it can. It all depends on the contract you sign. At present, it seems as if most tech shops allow you to moonlight on your own boxes. But I've looked over company policies which were "we own your brainz". HP circa 2006 was one of those, iirc.

>Yes, yes it can

No, it literally can't. It can be somewhat similar with contracts that promise a transfer of IP, but you'd get sued for breach of contract, not for copyright infringement.

That doesn't stop companies from putting draconian claims in their contracts and manuals, and it doesn't stop them from trying to prove infringement anyway (no copyright case ever is a 'sure thing'), which is enough to scare most employees into toeing the line. But they can't actually make unrelated work you do on your own time automatically 'work for hire'.

Here's a solid discussion of that topic: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf

The pivotal words are "within the scope of his or her employment" - these words can get a little fuzzy, but http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-scope-of-employment.htm is a reasonable (though not authoritative) discussion of the topic.

Re: An apology to open source

#250

Post by nevinera »

modoc wrote: post #172
nevinera wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

That is OFTEN how US employment contracts work though... Perhaps not in CA, but the rest of the US... Every employment contract I've been asked to sign has had some level of owning stuff I do off-hours (up to everything you do any time on your own computers, everything you've done in the past, etc...). I've always pushed back and gotten it changed to meet my needs.

It's how they're written, but not how they work. In reality, that type of claim is not enforceable.

It is a good signal that they will attempt to prove infringement on your outside work though, and you can't ever guarantee a win in that kind of court case; the case-law is too messy and depends heavily on unproveables like 'intent' and 'reasonability'.

Post reply on HN