Slashdot Mirror
Hiring Open Source Developers for Closed Source Work?
With two new positions being created, I'd normally call up a few recruiters and go through hundreds of resumes. After a hundred phone calls and a dozen interviews, I might find one guy in five hundred who's sharp, motivated and genuinely interested in games.
Hiring from a pool of open/free developers guarantees that I've found someone motivated, which is the toughest thing to quantify up front. I'd like to believe I'm giving something back to the community by starting my search here as well. The problem is that, as a game company, the majority of our code is closed source. Would that put developers off? Do most free software developers aspire to create free software exclusively?"
The reasoning here makes some amount of sense, and targetting a specific group for hiring purposes is nothing new. Would this idea work well, or are there other problems, both philosophical and ethical, that could cause problems?
They will most likely try to GPL everything they touch. Or, they might use GPL'd code (that is all they will want to use) and your whole project becomes GPL'd. Either way, I would be very cautious about hiring them. I have had problems with them. They will start doing work on their OSS projects while on the clock.
I know that there are a lot of people who work in various places where there is competition-sensitive and even classified information and still work on free software. You just have to make it known beforehand what the bounds of who owns what and how it is to be licensed is.
You should also make it clear about the bounds of what the employee is allowed to do during work... for instance, Linus is explicitly allowed to work on the Linux kernel at work, but perhaps you want your employees working on your software at work and only working on their free projects on their own time.
All in all, however, I think this is a good thing. If you're up front than those who will only work on free projects for philosophical reasons just won't accept the offer, and it will help you find a good person who doesn't mind working in both realms.
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
If you have thousands of applications for a handful of positions, it means you aren't making the posted job requirements high enough.
..or the salary low enough !!
That implies that free software developers are either working for open-source companies (not likely, not many of them left that are profitable), doing non-computer jobs (again, not likely, if they know enough to program) or just plain unemployed.
They could also work computer jobs for firms that don't sell software. Perhaps as many as 2/3rds of all programmers aren't working on mass-market stuff, and there are webmasters, sysadmins, etc.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
:)
I want to say that there were two ships known as "he," the Bismarck, and I forget the second . . .
hawk
In many language, there is a pronoun for persons of unknown gender. English is one of those languages, and the word is "he."
"she" always impliexs gender in English. "He" only implies gender when the rest of the context implies a male.
hawk, nodding to Halmos, who set him straight on this [yes, *that* Halmos]
The difference, of course, is you can actually check up on the free software hacker. If he lists some free software projects on his resume you could take a quick look at the CVS logs and see how much work he is actually doing. In every free software project I have ever seen it was pretty obvious who was doing what. You can even troll through the mailing list archives and get an idea as to the interpersonal skills of the developer in question. Is he patient with the other developers? Does he work well with others?
It is far too easy for your "normal" applicants to bullshit you about what they have accomplished and how hard they work. You aren't ever going to see their previous work, and they know it. You can ask them riddles to see if they are clever, and you can test their knowledge of algorithims. You can crack a joke and see if their sense of humor works, and you can question them about their motivation. But you can't really see what kind of work they do until it is too late and they are on your payroll.
Free Software developers work in a fishbowl and their talents and weaknesses are much more apparent than most "normal" developers.
You want to stay away from the crowd who thinks that all software should be free.
Actually, you probably just need to steer clear of the ones who think that that belief allows them to make *your* software free.
Make me aerodynamic in the evening air
But from a large company's perspective, sure, why not make total universal ownership the default. You (the general you, not you specifically, Brian) can also negotiate things out of a paranoid boilerplate, especially if you're a desirable candidate or if you let the company know they're intolerable (like if you're a game designer who's also an author). Basically, if you can both laugh off over-restrictive boilerplate provisions as being for boilerplate employees, it's shouldn't be a problem.
But the key, in any case, is to see, understand and negotiate all terms of employment before agreeing to any offer. That means getting the proposed employment contract and all similar documents. A lot of people don't do that (I didn't use to), and end up in that uncomfortable situation of having to look over that stuff from the other side of the HR manager's desk on their first day of work. Just letting a company know that their employment contract is more important than the dental benefits they're quick to point out may be enough. If you've already signed everything away, well, I guess a performance review is a good time to renegotiate your contract.
I understand that some junior programmers out there are just happy to get a job, no matter what belongs to them or not. For them I would recommend what I did at my first job at Sega: keep things to yourself that you want to hold on to. Assume anything that you tell other people, or any code that you write, belongs to The Company. But be OK with that. When you're starting out, your actual code isn't nearly as important as what you learn in writing it, so actually it's kind of liberating. Focus on improving your knowledge and your skills, and understand that the code you write is expendable. If you have a great game design idea, develop it in your head or (believe it or not) maybe offer it to The Company. Sure, it might be the last good idea you ever have, but you may not be in a position to develop it better or more to your advantage than The Company is. Of course, there will come a time when doing is more important than learning.
Uh, what else would you ever need? I mean, you can also get twice the salary or not have to come in to work if you get management's approval. The terms of any agreement or contract can be modified if both parties agree. Come on, people, don't fall for this -- "management's approval" is as good as "no."Speaking for myself, the big issues are (a) being up front about what is expected, and (b) not prohibit me from doing Open Source work separately. If you want to sweeten the deal (if you have a candidate you really want to woe) you can allow them to spend some amount of work time on Open Source projects. Finally, a useful thing is to institute an Open Source policy for noncore techology software -- at every software company I know of, there is tons of software written for various reasona that have very little to do with the actual products being developed. Such software (usually tools) you may want to be able to consider if they can be Open Sourced.
How come you think you are giving back to the community? What are you giving back to the community?
You're looking for two programmers and figure that you want to give Free Software developers a chance. Would you normally not hire free software developers?
I'd say that if programming jobs were really hard to find you'd be doing the community a service by preferring Free Software developers, but currently any competent programmer can get a decent job any time, at least where I come from. And you surely would not hire incompetent programmers?
bye
schani
hey, did you actually _read_ the article? He said he will get _thousands_ of applicaions, most of them unqualified. Sifting through the crap was why he asked the question.
Actually, I did read the article. He said "hundreds", not "thousands".
If you have thousands of applications for a handful of positions, it means you aren't making the posted job requirements high enough.
If you have thousands of applications for dozens of positions, then you can afford the manpower to have several people sift resumes.
If you have a few hundred resumes for a small number of positions, and you're responsible for interviewing, then you had better *make* the time to sift through those applications, because it's your job to consider all of the candidates. If the majority are "crap", then you can throw out almost all of them after about 15 seconds each, and have a much smaller stack left over to deal with.
Lastly, his proposed solution does not substantially improve the quality of the resumes he'll get (small effects notwithstanding). I've been on both sides of the Open/Closed coding fence, so I feel qualified to comment on this one.
What? "Share your philosophies on IP..."? The guy is looking to hire people for a closed source company. It has nothing to do with finding people who "share his philosophy".
This is why he wrote, "Selectively creating jobs for this group seems an appropriate way of giving back to the community"? He's using company resources to support a cause he *personally* believes in. The *company* just wants the best coders it can get for the positions.
(a) he thinks they have proven abilities
Sure. By all means encourage resumes from them. But excluding everyone *else*, when everyone else includes a large number of people with comparable abilities, is harmful to the company's aim (finding good coders). Thus, this action would be harming the company, to support a personal cause of the interviewer. Not a good thing.
Suppose a job applicant puts a lot of charity work (volunteering at a homeless shelter, say) on his resume. An employer decides to hire him because (a) the employer thinks that skills acquired in volunteering also apply to the workplace and (b) the employer agrees that charity for the homeless is a good thing.
Reason (a) is a great reason. Reason (b) is grounds for firing. See above - it is the *duty* of the interviewer to be *impartial*, and to hire based only on suitability for the *company's* goals - not based on non-work-related opinions of the interviewer.
Your point is well-taken. But no matter where I go looking for resumes, I'll get more resumes than I can ever respond to. I can get literally dozens of resumes weekly from any recruiter I contact. Game programming is an attractive field.
This is where first-pass filters come in. There are several (somewhat arbitrary) filters you can use to toss out many of the resumes that are still based more or less on ability.
I personally just skim resumes on the first pass looking for "good" and "bad" flags.
Coding as a hobby is a "good" flag. Awards are a "good" flag. A mile of past experience doing useful work is a "good" flag. High marks if they're a recent graduate is a "good" flag.
Absence of experience is a "bad" flag. Absence of anything other than school projects and grunt work is a "bad" flag. Lack of diversity in languages and systems known is a "bad" flag, though not a crippling one. Low or mediocre marks if they're a recent graduate is a "bad" flag.
You get the idea. Using criteria like these, I can sift through a couple of resumes per minute, and chuck three quarters of them. The ones I keep get a closer look, and there's a manageable number of them.
If I just dump half of them out of hand (by excluding a candidate group), though, I'm not dividing based on quality (for the most part). This means I have fewer high-quality candidates to choose from, which is a Bad Thing even discounting the fact that I'd be fired.
What I see in common with free software hobbyists is the motivation to write code. Philosophical points aside, if I can hire from a pool of people more likely to be motivated to write code, I'm ahead.
I agree that coding as a hobby is a good sign that someone's a good coder. However, this would probably best be used as a filter later in the pipe. Hobbyists don't necessarily know what they're doing or have the expertise you require any more than non-hobbyists would.
If you are in charge of hiring programmers, you should hire the best programmers for the job. If they end up being Open Source or Free Software people, great - but if you make your candidate pool *only* Open Source or Free Software programmers, you will be fired, and rightly so.
Make your candidate pool as wide as possible, and do not filter it based on your own biases. If you think there's a lot of talent in the Open Source and Free Software communities, then by all means encourage applicants - but encourage the standard channels as well.
Filtering based on whether or not the candidates share your philosophies on IP is just as bad as, say, giving all of your friends the first shot at the interviews. You'd be arbitrarily ignoring (discriminating against) a wide pool of skilled applicants who would be just as good at the job.
Filter only on suitability for the job.
I do a _lot_ of interviewing even though I'm a developer. I've gotten really good at qualifying applicants for development jobs on my team. One of the questions I ask to discern whether they're motivated or just looking for another job is by asking if they participate in or maintain any Open Source projects.
So you're asking about the next step--only interviewing Open Source folks.... I'm not so sure about that. I think it's better to find the best person you can whether they do Open Source or not. It just so happens that the folks I know that work on projects outside of work have better coding habits and style and methodologies than those that don't. Practice makes perfect.
/will
must have contributed to an open source project
You wouldn't put it this way...you'd say "Successful candidates will have demonstrated their abilities by making source code from past successful projects available for public download."
If the big bosses ask why, just explain that you're not looking for a 9-5 type, you want someone who eats, breathes, and lives code. Coding in their spare time is evidence of that. You want someone who's not a glory hound but is willing to share their work. You want to be able to see what kind of work they do without violating anyone else's IP.
And shrink-wrapped like a commodity! I'm an artist!
Oh, wait, that's supposed to be in a Napster thread.
There are many projects to which I'd like to devote some of my time and creativity. Some are being created now (Jabber for one); others live only in my mind. Yet I work for a startup company, and that tends to translate into "We give you stock and a little cash; in return you work on our product to the exclusion of everything else."
I've justified it in the past by believing that one of these endeavors will pay off if the company is bought or better, goes public. At that point I would be free to pursue my true desires, working an occasional contract for money to keep from depleting my savings. More and more, however, I'm beginning to lose faith in the concept. :(
So much of our (American) economy is based on money making money. Banks lend it to buy things on credit (sometimes at 18.9% interest!); the IMF uses it to destroy developing countries for the gain of the top bankers; our government uses it via the CIA to overthrow popular governments in Asia and Latin America and to bribe top officials in the name of fighting communism but actually to keep these nations within the American sphere of influence (iow, force them to import our goods at American prices and export their own cheaply), again to the gain of domestic investors. </rant>
My point is that we as a society have moved so completely away from doing work that we enjoy and feel makes a contribution to people rather than someone else's bank account. So if you can convince your company to provide a pretty cool job to someone and still allow them the time to follow their dreams, more power to you!
Peace PatientZero
P.S. Did you know that you just finished working for the government for this year? Starting a few days back, you actually began earning money for yourself. Rejoice!
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
The problem is that, as a game company, the majority of our code is closed source. Would that put developers off? Do most free software developers aspire to create free software exclusively?
That implies that free software developers are either working for open-source companies (not likely, not many of them left that are profitable), doing non-computer jobs (again, not likely, if they know enough to program) or just plain unemployed. Somehow, none of those three make sense - I refuse to believe that everybody involved in the development of Linux works for companies like RedHat or Pizza Hut. Just my opinion, though.
What's your damage, Heather?
I'm a professional programmer myself. I try to contribute to open source myself. So most of the software I write in my own time, I give away.
But when I'm hired to do a job, I'm getting paid for my time. Anything I write during that time, is my employers: he paid for it. Heck, most of the times it's the employers ideas and wishes that I express in code, thus it's partially his on that ground too.
That said, I always try to encourage my employers to open up the source. I've never succeeded in that, tho.
----------------------------------------------
the pun is mightier than the sword
I'm a manager at a closed-source development shop. A few months ago (you know, then the economy was good and companies were hiring), I came close to hiring a fairly prolific open-source developer.
Now, this person (who will remain nameless and is not whoever you're thinking of and is not particularly famous) initially seemed like a godsend. I had seen and admired his code for some time. I was very willing to even set aside some portion of the allocated time purely to work on "Blue Sky R&D", ie, any open source stuff he desired, to be released under any license desired. The deal was, of course, the rest of the time, when coding for The Company, that's all proprietary.
Now, I'm a software manager, which means I myself have been a prima-donna pain in the butt (in my younger days) and am very used to working with (and indeed, admiring the skills of) other prima-donna, largely ego-driven people. Since I count myself in this category, it's just a statement of fact, not a complaint.
Well, even with that background, I could not belive how downright stroppy this particular open-source coder was.
Some choice quotes: "your people will all be less talented than me. I don't want to have to spend all my time teaching them" (he never met the team).
"Since you'll own my code and tell me what to do, monetary compensation is the only reason I'll be there, so I need a very large salary". That really pissed me off. I happen to love programming, and I do believe in the project I'm working on. I also really appreciate getting paid.
What's the freaking condradiction here, people? With so many job openings, you pick the paid position for which you enjoy the work. Duh!
Anyway, needless to say, given the attitude and the unreasonable demands, I eventually gave up this individual. It's not fair of me, but the experience left me wary of possibly hiring other primarily Open-Source developers. Have any other people got good experiences to share? Maybe that will make me see things with a less jaundiced eye.
P.S. For what it's worth, I use *and contribute* to open source software. So should you.
Part of the Second American Revolution!
.. if the software-developer is a rather famous OSS-personality, you could actually also generate buzz around your company, just by hiring that person. This buzz may actually help generate revenue.
While I agree that filtering based on philosophy is generally a bad idea, it may actually be much easier to seperate the good prospects from bad prospects in the OSS-world.
In the OSS-world, you will have access to the persons code, and the persons activities on open mailing-lists.
This means that you have a huge amount of information on a candidate not gather by the employee himself/herself. I'd say that this would make it more of
a "guarantee" that the employee will function well in your company.
This all means that while the pool of programmers may be even bigger and better in the regular pool of applicants, you may more easily find the good candidates, and much FASTER find the good candidates from the OSS-pool.
I say, that if you can save your company quite a few hours searching for candidates, by recruiting an employee from the OSS-world, then do it.
I don't see how "must have contributed to an open source project" on a job ad is any more illegal than "must have experience writing network drivers" it's OK to have job related experience/background requirements.
If they wanted midget open source developers that'd be different (although they could just post an ad in the midget OSS developers journal and hope for the best).
The author's (my) e-mail address would be a good guess, eh?
I verified with the higher ups that this would not be a problem before I posted the article. An employee needs to clear his area of work with management to ensure that there's no conflict. If there is none - shoot for the moon.
Interesting response, and I'm all for hiring a female who meets the qualifications. But it's not an entry-level job. And experienced and strong female programmers with an interest in sports games are few and far between. If you know any, by all means send their resumes my way. Midway/Chicago pays exceptionally well, and has a very, very diverse environment.
The guy who sends a resume and shows up for the interview is more motivated to find a job. The slob you describe seems the motivated and determined type. If it looks like he's got a solid background, a good personality and scads of potential, I'll hire him over the punctual guy in the perfectly pressed suit.
Midway's ownership of intellectual property is the default, yes. I'd venture a guess that this is the case for every game, movie and music contract in the country.
That said, and I verified this before posting the article, you don't need anything but management's approval to start off on your own software. So long as your intended project/area of projects doesn't go against Midway's interests, you're clear to proceed. Encouraged, even. If you're pretty much reimplementing your current work project for the public domain, you're not going to get approval.
I'd have to know more about the sales of existing Linux game titles and corporate's reaction to the above to make any comments here. I suspect that if there were a demonstrated demand for Linux games from Midway, Midway would be only too happy to oblige. Many of our products are maintained on multiple platforms already, and we certainly have enough Linux enthusiasts internally to make ports happen.
And before someone proposes it - please - a letter writing campaign isn't the best way to make game companies support Linux. Buying the existing titles from Loki and the likes is.
I remember reading an interview with Linus a couple years back, which covered a broad range of topics. Not being that much into hero worship myself, I don't follow his carreer with particular interest. However, one line jumped out at me.
The interviewer asked him if he could speak at all about his present job, (I forget which company.) His reply? Something to the effect of no, but it's a lot of fun.
The reason this jumped at me was that I realised that whatever he was working on at his "day" job was not only closed source, but he couldn't even discuss it.
It seems to me that this is probably the case for the vast majority of "open source" developers. (Not nescassarily the no-talking bit, but the closed source bit) So if you have the ability and desire to help open source in this way, go for it.
Just because I work for you doesn't mean you own me. If I choose to work on job-related projects at home, on my own equipment, on my own time, that's my own choice.
However, using company time and company equipment for personnal projects is an iffy proposition at best. Not that it's ever stopped us. And visiting /. is job related, really!
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
I can see a problem with it. Sure, not all OSS programmers are rabid zealots with nothing but Free World Domination on their minds.
However, what if one or both hired programmers are? And they put GPL code into the source, and wait until *after* its released to say anything?
Wouldn't the employer be obligated to release code that they would've preferred to keep?
Paranoid? Sure. Impossible scenario? Far from it.
One thing I asked for, and got, was an exemption in the standard "all your work are belong to us" employment agreement for work on open-source projects that isn't strictly related to GMI's business. A similar clause should be added to every employment agreement, IMAO, and doing that for these hires would make your company a lot more attractive to an open-source developer, because it removes any doubt that they could have legal problems later from continuing to work on the things that brought them to your attention in the first place.
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
What's your real problem here? Seems to me it's the recruiters you use. Focusing on OSS people might help you solve your problem of finding good developers, but perhaps you should try other channels as well, like recruiting directly from colleges, having open houses where interested developers come to you, or various other possibilities. You're probably just dealing with a lot of frustration with regards to having lame recruiters sending you anyone who happens to have C/C++ on their resume. Getting rid of that process in whatever way you can is the first step to enlightenment.
--
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
If you have so many quality applicants that you can afford to weed out the ones that don't work on Open Source, great. But I doubt it.
There are a whole lot of individuals, and each of them has separate views on the subject of commercial software.
I'm honestly yet to meet an OSS or FS developer who worries about whether something is commercial or not. Most worry about whether something is OSS or FS, or proprietary. Most OSS projects move between being non commercial and commercial with little concern on anyones behalf.
click here to see the idea in action. Maybe a little community pressure would convince VA to take this up?
Can your IM do this?
Completely true. The guy writes:
:P I bet he's being bombarded by "Can I have a job? I like video games." emails right about now...
Hiring from a pool of open/free developers guarantees that I've found someone motivated,
This could not be further from the truth. For every successful open-source project, there are 5 dozen that were started one weekend, and dropped the next, when the developer's interest waned. (Take a look at freshmeat at all the projects who's "last updated" field is like 1999.)
I think it would be better to go through the recruiter, talk to people, regardless of their open-source-ness, and hire whoever seems like a hard worker. A lot of work? Hundreds of resumes? Sure, but that is a different matter for which there are recruiters to help. Applying a "have worked on open-source projects" filter is not beneficial, unless the work was meaningful and consistent.
In any case, I don't think its a great idea to post your email address on a public forum, saying you need game developers!
--
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
Just find out if they are Open Source or Free Software friendly. That's what I'm planning to do since my employers are going to be looking for more help soon. I won't necessarily say why I'm asking about their opinion of Linux, etc., but their answer counts tremendously.
I won't even consider anyone who responds negatively about Free Software. They had better both know what it is and appreciate its purpose or we're not going to hire them. The place is a closed-source vertical-market software shop but we do use open source software (more of it all the time). The last thing I want is yet another droid who thinks that the solution to every problem is to buy some software.
Wish me luck.
Since it's just about impossible to make money selling open source software (don't reply to this with half a dozen links to companys who do, I realize it's possible), these developers are probably already doing their open source development in their free time.
/. users hate Windows or think Microsoft is out to get them!
I would agree with the article in that, as long as there aren't any evil clauses in the non-compete agreement that prevent them from engaging in their hobby, I'm sure they'd jump at the chance.
Keep in mind that most open source programmers write code for open source operating systems, however. Perhaps you would be best suited to pick someone who has more or more recent experience in programming for whatever platform and language you need rather than just to choosing them because they have been working in open source.
There is no real need to "give back" to the open source community. People don't give away their code, and then expect something in return. That's the whole idea of giving it away. It would be similar to someone who authors novels, manuals, or other books and then gives them away for nothing. Obviously, if they cared about making money for themselves, they wouldn't give it away.
____________________
Remember, not all
Prevent linux based DDOS's!
http://linux.denialofservice.org/
Something that may help address both of the above problems is making sure that what they're working on for you is sufficiently different from what they're working on independently. That may cost you some of the advantage of initial skill set, though not always since individuals are likely to have worked on multiple areas of development in open source projects. What it shouldn't affect is that specific incoming skills are less critical than bringing in good people with talent - the skills they'll need for your specific environment can be learned on the job (assuming you're hoping to keep people for some significant amount of time).
Finally, you can decide that the risk of leakage or the potential damage isn't large enough to overshadow the advantages of getting qualified and motivated people - maybe they do end up using the same techniques in your game and the open source game and maybe they don't have a problem with burning out on what they're doing. As long as there's not too much overlap in the games, it's not going to cost you much if anything in sales. For example if you're doing yet another first-person shooter and you hire someone who's been working on Tux Racer, what's the harm if some of the graphics rendering is handled the same way between them?
-- fencepost
fencepost
just a little off
Does it matter which camp they come from? Shouldn't you decide based upon their experience, skills and personality? I'm going to create a new concept - codism. Like racism, but it depends on whether you code open or closed source software. I think you read it here first.
Basically, I think you'll be OK as long as you aren't trying to hire RMS, and I think the majority of OSS folks will appreciate the fact that you made a point to look here first.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Get with the 1990s. the "correct" pronoun is "they"
---=-=-=-=-=-=---
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
If you strike a good deal with a good developer, it will be a win/win situation. Good programmers can do with a decent salary to pay the bills, and as long as you allow the guy (or gal) some slack in doing things in his/her copious spare time, you'll have a happy developer and the community benefits from the situation where he has a real life playground for his out-of-work ambitions.
Unless you're in a position to tell the lawyers what to do, steer clear from them. Nothing is more demotivating than having a bunch of paper pushers looking over your shoulder all day. Just be very up front about what exactly will become corporate property, and where the limits of outside activities are (i.e., don't compete, and don't get involved in activities that reflect badly on the company). Really, there is no need to put the gory details in writing as long as you get rid of the blanket restrictions that are in some contracts.
I sort of take it you're an American business, so firing people just because you don't like the color of their socks shouldn't be an issue. I'm always surprised to see contract wording that is so anti-employee it hurts, while the person that drafted the contract completely forgot that retaining a creative person against his/her will is entirely against the company interest in the first place.
Bert Driehuis -- All I asked was a friggin' rotatin' chair. Throw me a bone here, people.
I know when I went job hunting I had open source and Linux on my resume as my strong points. I didn't get many offers for interviews. One person that interviewed me asked me why I worked on Open Source software rather than "normal" software. After that I decided to minimize my OS and Linux involvement on my resume. I suddenly got lots of offers for interviews and a few job offers.
I think many employers think Linux users and Open Source programmers are too "fanatical" to hire on and so many people that realize this might try to hide their OS involvement from their resume.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
As an ex-Midway employee I suggest you examine their standard employee agreements - basically everything you ever thought of, they claim as theirs. You would have to get the fine legal staff their to write up specials for everyone who still wanted to do open-source stuff. Besides, it's a really sucky place to work ;-)
-- All that's left of me, is slight insanity, whats on the right, I don't know. -- Bob Mould
Are you responsible for the project? Do you want it to succeede?
If any of the above is true, focus on hiring _good_ developers. Everything else is irrelevant.
Regards,
-m-
I would like to die like my grandfather did - sleeping. And not screaming in terror, like his passengers.
Personally, I'm always insulted when people offer me employment. How dare they think that my work is so trite as to be bought and sold!
-- dR.fuZZo
By all means, DO IT!
I work at LithTech. I work, probably technically illegally, on OpenSource/Free Software at home. I have contributed to various game projects in minor ways. One thing that other Free/OpenSource game programmers say to me is, "You work at a game company?! How Cool! That's a dream job." Not once have I heard, "Die Fascist Proprietary Software Developer!" Almost all of them want to be game developers, or wish they were.
I also teach free classes on programming (Seattle/Kirkland,WA). I have some exceptional students. One understands C very well, and regularly reads FreeBSD Kernel source. My students are all looking for jobs in programming; I encourage them to write OpenSource code. That way, their code and work is visible, rather than hidden. It's not just games companies that should be looking for coders in the Open/Free communities.
Open/Free software and Proprietary houses have a symbiotic relationship. I believe that it has always been that way. By all means, please, look into the very eager, very motivated, Free Software programmers pool. They want to work professionally on games. Hey! You can look at what their code is actually like before you even talk with them..! It's a win-win.
Well, first (and IMHO most important) you are fortunately working in the gaming industry not in a security relevant industry like banking. So even if your programmers would like to share things with the open community it wouldn't be a too big concern. What do you want them to do? Develop a revolutionary new game engine (like Unreal was at its time)? Why not hire them with the perspective of open sourcing the engine at some point in time and focus on unique gameplay? They would be motivated (they _do_ something for the community, too) and the perspective of giving could attract great potential. Even if they would "sneak" pieces of the code out (like some other posters suggested) into open source it wouldn't matter because it is your plan anyway. Games are not completely based on technolgy, games live from the concept, the gameplay, the originality, etc. etc. Don't be afraid that Open Source programmers will be in your way en route to success. If the gameplay is good you will get there ...
As far as I can tell, all different sorts of people are involved in open software. Some aren't going to be interested in closed-source projects, but others will (especially if they can still do open-source work in their free time). There are a lot of factors that go into choosing the right job, and open source is only one of them for most people.
I think that targeting some of your recruiting at the open source community is a great idea. And the best part is that before you hire an open source developer, you can easily get a look at how he writes code.
Well, it's a nice idea, but here's my advice: just find the best coders you can. Most programmers don't mind working on proprietary software. Sure, some think that anything proprietary is evil, but most are not nearly so extreme. They code for fun, or to see people use their stuff. If you just try to get the best, you'll be doing yourself a favour. Consider it an extra qualification if they write free software. Will they apply? For sure. Microsoft has a similar program; they just provide day jobs for people who like hacking.
If you are modding me down because you disagree with me, use the "Flamebait" category, not the "Troll" one.
Other than the fact that you can look at the source of projects they've worked on, there really isn't anything that all free software developers are going to have in common. You won't know if you've found someone who's a rabid Stallmanist, or Bruce Perens, or what, until you contact him/her.
OSS developers, contrary to popular belief, don't have a hive mind mentality. There are a whole lot of individuals, and each of them has separate views on the subject of commercial software.
If I were in your shoes, I'd solicit for resumes, but I would certainly consider the OSS developers first, as they have examples of their work that are clearly available, and you can see how good their work is, what their strengths and weaknesses are, and make a more informed decision.
When encryption is outlawed, ?o'AZ-,++o+i++##4AoA+-/-C++bI+/.+~
If you needed a lawyer, would you hire someone who lives and breathes law, or someone who would rather be fishing?
This is a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned. If I see open source volunteerism on a resume, it goes right to the top of the stack.
An earlier reply expressed concern that developers might work on recreational code during business hours. I have worked with active open source developers who have done recreational coding on the job, but after their manager told them that was inappropriate, they stopped. If they didn't stop, they would have been fired, no differently than if they were spending too much time browsing the web at work.
If the earlier poster thinks this is a problem, they need to ask themselves whether it is a problem with the employee or the management. Unless the employee is both stupid and terminally unprofessional, it is the latter.
Another post expressed concern that somehow hiring an open source developer would "infect" your code base with GPLed code. Geez. I feel like I'm reliving the early hysteria of the AIDS epidemic when people were uneducated as to how AIDS was spread. Anyone who considers that a serious issue needs to check their paranoia at the door. Could it be that the Microsoft et al. propoganda is actually being swallowed hook-line-and-sinker by gullible individuals? I should hope most folks have more in the way of critical thinking skills than that.
All in all, the folks I've worked with who are open source developers or at least tuned into the open source world have been the cream of the crop in terms of expertise and knowledge base and, above all, are passionate about their work.
-- My choice of computing platform is a symbol of my individuality and belief in personal freedom.
As others have mentioned, make sure their contract agreement doesn't limit their ability to do Open Source work.
However, I think you should make sure that both sides enter with their eyes wide open. Basically, the programmer could find themselves working in an environment they aren't comfortable. They might, for instance, be forced to develop on a platform they don't like, using a development tool they do not perfer. So long as the attitude is, "Hey, it's a living" and not "this SUCKS!" it should be OK.
A side benefit, if I were an open source advocate (and I do not claim to be), would be to "spread the gospel" to this company. If nothing else, versions for alterante operating systems may be developed. Even though I don't fall into the "alterante operating system user" category, I think it's a good thing.
Hiring open-source developers for closed-source projects shouldn't be a problem as long as there isn't a conflict of interest.
For example, it's probably not a good idea to hire a developer to work on a closed-source OS if he/she is spending a lot of time on the Linux kernel. One cut-and-paste could conceivably put someone in legal Gehenna.
Hiring someone who is busy with open source or FSF code might me a good idea, though. It show's that they likely give a crap about development, and probably aren't drones.
The only thing that we learn from history is that nobody learns anything from history.
Even open source developers don't live from air and water alone, and not all of them can make a living from doing things connected to open source. So give it a try.
Make sure the conditions are clear to both sides. Leave them enough time and freedom to continue their open source activities besides the job. Think about non-traditional contracts, which might for example leave the opportunity to re-use code under an open source license after a well-defined period of commercial exploitation under closed source conditions. Let them use open source tools thery are used to as far as possible without getting into license conflicts with your own stuff. Be honest. Provide them with good working conditions.
Good luck.
http://erichsieht.wordpress.com/category/english/
These GPL vigilantes are a threat to your company's intellectual property. It's only a matter of time before the free software community starts forming terrorist organizations. And you know they'll just steal office supplies all day.
Interpersonal skills count for a heck of a lot in professional programming. In many projects / companies / situations, the ability to play nicely with the other kids and communicate well can end up being much more important than the ability to code fast or well.
While there is likely some correlation between programming skill and open-source participation, I doubt that somebody doing great open-source work will tell you much about what kind of human being they are, and what it's like to work with them. Since open-source projects usually happen over the net, in a very decentralized, distributed, and impersonal fashion, they really require a very different set of social skills than the tight-knight topsy-turvy hum of an office.
In an open source project, you can choose a bug to fix or an idea to implement, do the work at your leisure, and send the diffs off to the project with only the most minimal communication -- "Hi. Here's some code. I wrote it. Try it. You can use it. Bye.".
In a business setting, all your work is subject to a set of priorities and desires which are not your own. Even the best ideas can die if there's not consensus behind them, and even the brightest people can end up contributing little of value if they're alienated from the others they work with. The ratio of social interaction to coding in a programming job is generally somewhere between 4:1 and 9:1, I'd say.
So the moral of Plugh's story?
For managers: the open source world is a great place to fish for technical talent, but offers no protection from difficult personalities. There are plenty of decent and non-egomaniacal people in the open source world, so don't let one stinker sour you to the whole thing.
For developers: it's not enough to be fantastically good with the computer. If you can't interact respectfully and productively with others, even people who are not as smart as you or whom you disagree with, reality will catch up with you.
If you should hire Open Source programmers for the job, then keep in mind that your experience with them (either good or bad) will probably not be representative for Open Source programmers in general, since they're all too different. They're different in choice of lifestyle, music taste, religious matters, general social behaviour, coding style, attitude towards Proprietary Software, attitude towards authorities, and whatever aspect you can think of.
Personally, I (as a Free Software lover/user/programmer) would have little problems writing Proprietary Software for a Proprietary Software company (with the notable exception of Microsoft; I've had it with them), providing the paycheck would be fair and the working environment good (I'd require that in any job).
I would have some demands though, but they aren't very extreme. The most important ones include:
-I should be allowed to work on Free/Open Source software in my spare time, and GPL that software.
-I should be allowed to use Free/Open Source software to do the job you require me to do (note that this means I only want to use what works best for the job, be it tools you provide or otherwise; also note that using GPLd software to write program X does not mean that X needs be GPLd)
-It should be clear what I'm exactly allowed to do; for example: am I allowed to open-source a tool I wrote to aid me in the job you required me to do (say, a text editor to write source in)?
----
There are those Open Source developers, like Richard Stallman, who would be insulted at the idea. You want to stay away from the crowd who thinks that all software should be free. On the other hand there are people like me who write software in their spare time, release what they do under the FreeBSD license, and just don't care what happens to it, as long as someone uses it (oh wait, no one uses my software anymore, even me!) In any case poeple like Linus, who developed their software not out of a need to have free software, but out of a desire to create software, and released it under an open source license because of a desire to share their personal work with the world are the people you are looking for. I often write closed source solutions.
In any case, we all need to eat, if your putting food on the table, someone's bound to eat it. Good luck
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect