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

71–80 of 259 posts

Re: An apology to open source

#71

Post by arethuza »

crazysaem wrote: post #66
nness wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much the run of the mill employment contract will claim ownership of an employees creations, most regardless of whether that creation has anything to do with their every day activities. Some go so far as to claim all creations related to their discipline, even if conducted outside work hours. The problem is simply that its too hard to challenge if such an issue ever arose. Any decent business wouldn't just cla…

Well in the contract with my current employer, it pretty much states that every IP I create during my employment belongs to my employer. So if I wanted to create a project that I own, I would have to terminate my contract first. This is especially annoying being a Student and having many ideas all the time. Oh well.

Even IP created outside of work?

Re: An apology to open source

#73

Post by grabeh »

I suppose the key question is what came first - was code that the creator was exposed to whilst in employment incorporated into Chart.js, or was code created by the creator incorporated into projects at work.

Clearly in the former case, the employer would have a more legitimate reason to express concern than the latter. However, in any event, as other posters have identified, there could be very positive PR benefits from supporting the open sourcing of the project.

In any event, the main justification for retaining the secrecy of a project would be to maintain a competitive advantage however, the extent of the competitive advantage is dependent on the complexity of the code and the ease with which equivalent functionality could be reproduced independently. That's a subject which I would be interested to hear more on.

Re: An apology to open source

#74

Post by noonespecial »

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.

Not necessarily true. Its a big can of worms that I suspect an employer might not want to pry open.

http://www.flsa.com/overtime.html http://www.flsa.com/computer.html

Re: An apology to open source

#76

Post by analog »

shadowmint wrote: post #65
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.

That's true if and only if he didn't continue to refine and contribute to the code after entering employment, and specifically , didn't use it at his place of employment. Many places have terrible and unhealthy, but legally binding contracts regarding work done in your own time while employed. :( Without more information we can't know, but its far from given that their position is legally ambiguous.

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

Re: An apology to open source

#77

Post by readme »

keefe wrote: post #63
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…

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.

Re: An apology to open source

#78

Post by aprescott »

crazysaem wrote: post #66
nness wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much the run of the mill employment contract will claim ownership of an employees creations, most regardless of whether that creation has anything to do with their every day activities. Some go so far as to claim all creations related to their discipline, even if conducted outside work hours. The problem is simply that its too hard to challenge if such an issue ever arose. Any decent business wouldn't just cla…

Well in the contract with my current employer, it pretty much states that every IP I create during my employment belongs to my employer. So if I wanted to create a project that I own, I would have to terminate my contract first. This is especially annoying being a Student and having many ideas all the time. Oh well.

Speak to them and get an exemption, even on a case-by-case basis. Those ideas need to not die out, and you might find that being able to give life to them makes you simply a better employee.

Re: An apology to open source

#79

Post by grabeh »

noonespecial wrote: post #74
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 necessarily true. Its a big can of worms that I suspect an employer might not want to pry open. http://www.flsa.com/overtime.html http://www.flsa.com/computer.html

More importantly, this is UK-based employment, and consequently, unless specifically available in the contract, overtime would not generally be available in this scenario.

Re: An apology to open source

#80

Post by gngeal »

shadowmint wrote: post #65
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.

That's true if and only if he didn't continue to refine and contribute to the code after entering employment, and specifically , didn't use it at his place of employment. Many places have terrible and unhealthy, but legally binding contracts regarding work done in your own time while employed. :( Without more information we can't know, but its far from given that their position is legally ambiguous.

"That's true if and only if he didn't continue to refine and contribute to the code after entering employment, and specifically, didn't use it at his place of employment."

The same could be applied in reverse: if he wrote a considerable part of the code before entering employment and did use it at his place of employment, what does it say about the employer's right to use it? Or is it "since you're working here now, we can use all you ever wrote exclusively even if you didn't license it to us"?

Post reply on HN