11–20 of 48 posts
Granted I've only participated in 3 hackathons but the times I went I just walked in and found a cool thing to work on. I didn't have to sign anything or pay a cent. Is this sort of legalese normal in the US for hackathons?
You had to pay a fee? To create things for free?
Hackathons are not free to run at any significant scale. (especially when prizes are involved) Usually, the costs are covered by sponsors, and I can't find any indication that there were sponsors for this event. EDIT: Comment is incorrect; there were sponsors, see child comment.
Here is the event detail. http://www.automationalley.com/Events/Calendar/Event-Detail....
You had to pay a fee? To create things for free?
Hackathons are not free to run at any significant scale. (especially when prizes are involved) Usually, the costs are covered by sponsors, and I can't find any indication that there were sponsors for this event. EDIT: Comment is incorrect; there were sponsors, see child comment.
Granting a perpetual and royalty-free license is very common as can be seen in the Apache Individual Contributor License Agreement: https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
The Apache ICLA states that you still own the copyright of the software and can do what you want with it, they only license it from you and can then use it for the purposes stated in the agreement. It does require you to mention all the patents that you might infringe on, but only if you are aware of them. Otherwise you're pretty much in the clear.
I wouldn't have signed the document mentioned in the article, I think you made the right move.
I'm pretty sure the author reversed "reasonable" and "unreasonable" from what he intended.
Also, IANAL, but I'm also pretty sure this contract would not be enforceable because of the way it was presented. There would be a very strong argument that the participants were coerced into signing.
Granted I've only participated in 3 hackathons but the times I went I just walked in and found a cool thing to work on. I didn't have to sign anything or pay a cent. Is this sort of legalese normal in the US for hackathons?
At university hackathons I have been to there's usually a short waiver covering liability and sometimes ownership. Nothing very extensive compared to many legal contracts these days, but I would say that given the rather litigious culture in the US these sorts of papers are justified. The one mentioned in this article definitely sounds more troubling, however.
Transfer of IP is not reasonable, as you should still own what you have created. Granting a perpetual and royalty-free license is very common as can be seen in the Apache Individual Contributor License Agreement: https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt The Apache ICLA states that you still own the copyright of the software and can do what you want with it, they only license it from you and can then use it for the pu…
Transfer of IP is not reasonable, as you should still own what you have created. Granting a perpetual and royalty-free license is very common as can be seen in the Apache Individual Contributor License Agreement: https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt The Apache ICLA states that you still own the copyright of the software and can do what you want with it, they only license it from you and can then use it for the pu…
Thanks for your affirmation, I was feeling like a dummy being the only one that decided not to sign.
"...all IP is transferred to ownership of the City of Detroit (which I think is reasonable) and the City is granted a perpetual, royalty-free license to “use” any derivative software (which I think is unreasonable)" I'm pretty sure the author reversed "reasonable" and "unreasonable" from what he intended. Also, IANAL, but I'm also pretty sure this contract would not be enforceable because of the way it was presented.…
I think you're right that author has his thinking switched here. I also observe that he didn't make a mistake in translating his thoughts to a blog post. But it's clear to me that the whole contract is a problem.