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

81–90 of 259 posts

Re: An apology to open source

#81

Post by nevinera »

kawsper wrote: post #58
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.

Working in Denmark. I took it up with my Union, and they said that I couldn't do anything about it. The rule initially was made to own rights to images and articles from photographers and journalists, so they couldn't sell to third parties, but was extended to also include code.

We do have a similar rule (with similar origins), but it has to be contractually asserted, and it would only apply to portions of code integrated into a larger 'visual work' - mostly it doesn't come into play outside of contracting.

Re: An apology to open source

#82

Post by scotty79 »

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…

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?

Re: An apology to open source

#83

Post by readme »

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…

Oh man, that is some serious proliterian rage.

I have to wonder: why is it that someone thinks they can retroactively demand overtime pay for work that wasn't agreed in advance?

As a contractor, I really don't understand this attitude.

Re: An apology to open source

#84

Post by alexkus »

gngeal wrote: post #70
MrScruff wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the OP 'Sadly though, due to concerns from my employer regarding intellectual property and similarities in projects I've worked on, I've been asked to take down the site.' We have no way of assessing the validity of these concerns from what has been said. If the company feels the open source project contains work they have funded, and don't want to release, then it is their right to ask him to withdraw it. Also,…

Was he also asked by his employer to take down his "final year university project" that this was supposed to be? That sounds a little bit incongruous to me. Or was the "final year university project" also somehow related to his job output preceding in the creation of said final year project?

The IP of my final year (UK) university project belongs to the University not me, and not to the company that was sponsoring me for my final year.

Re: An apology to open source

#86

Post by aprescott »

arethuza wrote: post #71
crazysaem wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Unless an employee contract says otherwise, the default copyright position is that all work done is part of "work-for-hire".[1] There are a few reasons for this, and Joel Spolsky covered them pretty well.[2]

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire

[2]: http://answers.onstartups.com/questions/19422/if-im-working-...

Re: An apology to open source

#87

Post by Systemic33 »

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…

Someone found the company further down; linking to comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5400190

EDIT: Many people have pointed that its not the correct company.

EDIT2: http://www.expert-24.com/ seems to be the correct company, and seems more plausible to have IP problem with chart.js (don't got lynch them, seriously!)

Re: An apology to open source

#88

Post by gngeal »

danielsamuels wrote: post #24

I made a backup of it for personal use. https://github.com/danielsamuels/chart-js Documentation (basic, no CSS): http://danielsamuels.github.com/chart-js/

Perhaps the cleanest and most polite thing people could do with this would be "keep the API, completely rewrite the implementation, throw away the original".

Re: An apology to open source

#89

Post by analog »

gngeal wrote: post #80
shadowmint wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Without a specific licence there would be an implicit contract that the employer could use the library for any projects that Nick has used the library on.

If after Nick leaves they would be on shaky ground if they used it on other projects that Nick hadn't worked on.

IANL but that's my understanding of the law in the UK.

Re: An apology to open source

#90

Post by noonespecial »

readme wrote: post #83
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…

Oh man, that is some serious proliterian rage. I have to wonder: why is it that someone thinks they can retroactively demand overtime pay for work that wasn't agreed in advance? As a contractor, I really don't understand this attitude.

why is it that someone thinks they can retroactively demand overtime pay for work that wasn't agreed in advance

They shouldn't. They then also have no duty to supply that work free of charge to someone who never agreed to its creation. (Which is what he was willing to give by open sourcing it btw)

Post reply on HN