Slashdot Mirror
Getting Paid To Abandon an Open Source Project?
darkeye writes "I'm facing a difficult dilemma and looking for opinions. I've been contributing heavily to an open source project, making considerable changes to code organization and quality, but the work is unfinished at the moment. Now, a company is approaching me to continue my changes. They want to keep the improvements to themselves, which is possible since the project is published under the BSD license. That's fair, as they have all the rights to the work they pay for in full. However, they also want me to sign a non-competition clause, which would bar me from ever working on and publishing results for the original open source project itself, even if done separately, in my free time. How would you approach such a decision? On one side, they'd provide resources to work on an interesting project. On the other, it would make me an outcast in the project's community. Moreover, they would take ownership of not just what they paid for, but also my changes leading up to this moment, and I wouldn't be able to continue on my original codebase in an open source manner if I sign their contract."
If the money isn't worth it and/or if it will be harder for you to work in the near future, then don't sign.
It would have to be a really big chunk of change for sure here... Like near retirement money..
The value of a non-compete clause varies by state. In Maryland and Virginia, the courts have deemed that they must be of reasonable length, usually no more than three years, and several decisions have limited the duration to two.
In California, non-compete clauses are simply invalidated by the law. They have little (if any) power here.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
I don't see the big deal. It's only one BSD project.
;) ).
It's just like writing proprietary code for a living (I personally don't see anything wrong with that). Except that they have to compensate him for going "private" and appearing to "sell out" (reputation, good will etc).
To put it in perspective, how many of you would look down on him for "selling out" for USD1 billion? I'd personally tell him "Please take their money (if it's all legit)"...
Unless of course he's actually someone like RMS (but hey it's BSD so it can't be RMS
But if he's only going to get "normal developer" $$$, I don't think it's worth it unless he's really short on money and has no better options.
I hate all that noncompete crap, but if you gave me a huge enough pile of money with no other strings attached, I'd be happy to not work on a similar project (other than with you) for the rest of my life.
Moreover, they would take ownership of not just what they paid for, but also my changes leading up to this moment
If it's been released under the BSD license they can't do that in any meaningful way. The only rights *you* retain in the code you have released under that license is:
* The right to release another version under a different license.
* The right to be acknowledged as the author of the code.
* Some protection from misrepresentation and lawsuits.
You don't have the right to withdraw the code from distribution by anyone that already has a copy, and I don't think you have the right to remove your name from those copies, so what exactly do they imagine they would own?
I have never signed a non-compete either, but I have been asked to. If you are in California, you may be in luck. Back in the late 80's we passed a number of laws prohibiting most terms of non-competes including that you can't sign away your right to compete with your current employer or past one. Recently one aspect of that law was upheld in court. That won't stop them from suing you if things don't work out and you go back to helping that competitive project. Where most people get into trouble is intellectual property (IP). Remember, never take any code home. You own what's in your head (experience) but nothing else. Keep all your old code from the project, so that you can show that you used that IP elsewhere first. If you are serious about the job opportunity, ask to talk an attorney first with copy of it (Beware, attorneys a notoriusly slow about this type of a turnaround).
And that is the fundamental, philosophical difference between those who back the BSD/MIT-style licenses and those who are stuck on the GPL.
We don't care if corporations take our project and run with it. The more places our project can used, the better. To us, writing code isn't religion. We do it for fun, and we want our work to be usable and helpful to the most people possible. We're chill. If you modify our code, you can send back your changes. Don't want to give back? That's cool, too. We give our code away with no strings attached to maximize our utility, and to maximize the usefulness of the code. Our license is easily understood by non-lawyer types and has maximum compatibility with other Free software licenses. By keeping it simple and compatible, we avoid boring rewrites and promote sharing. It's great here.
The issue here is not the license, because we can assume that since the original authors of the project used the BSD license that they agree with the ideals I laid out. The real issue seems to be the non-competition clause of the company's proposed contract, not the BSD license.
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
Morals and ethics are internal. Society may have some expectations, but ultimately the individual must act according to their own internal motivations.
If you are conflicted about something to the point of having to ask a bunch of strangers, then you are at odds with yourself. You may be tempted by the money but are struggling with the morality of the decision.
My own test is simple:
Will I sleep better at night for having done this? If the answer is yes, then go for it. Usually, just the act of having to ask is its own answer: no, it's not right to do this.
I intentionally kept my own opinion out of the original post. I've found it's best to tell the truth, treat others with respect, and live according to my own code of honor, ethics, and morals than to compromise any of that for money.
Now if the motivation is not money, but rather the ability to proceed with exciting, challenging work *and* get paid for it, that's different. It would be especially different if the project in question was struggling due to a lack of time available but that's not what I read into the post.
The original story has the man as Sir Winston Churchill, going something like this:
Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course...
Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill: Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.
Thank you, wikiquotes!
That exchange is just as frequently attributed to George Bernard Shaw, and occasionally to Groucho Marx. Nobody seems to have a source, though, so it's pretty likely that none of them said it!
I can see two paths for this: One is that they're on the up and up and want to hire you for years to work on this project. That's fine, as long as you're willing to walk away from the people that you're working with in the Open Source world, their contributions, etc.
The other is that they hire you for a few months or a couple of years, cite 'creative differences', and then terminate your contract -- but hold you to the permanent non-compete.
This would allow them to torpedo your contribution to the project, leaving you without access to the OS community (and vice versa). They torpedo the project for cheap, and you get left holding the bag.
This is a bit different from a normal non-compete situation (for most programmers) where you go in, do their work and then agree to not compete with what they have you do. In this case you are effectively selling them your previous work. Charge them as if you'd been working exclusively for them for the entire time -- at a high consulting rate, because they already like the work you're doing (i.e. they're not paying you on spec, like is normally the case).
Remember: Until you sign the contract, everything is negotiable. You can ask for a house, a car and a weekend with the CEO's daughter. Whether they give that to you is an entirely different matter.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Yes. It places no unfair restrictions on the user of the software and leaves (by the FSF's definition) all four freedoms intact. It differs from the GPL in that there is no copyleft language. The code is provided as free software but you are not required to maintain that freedom when you modify it.
I personally prefer the GPL (v3) but people releasing code under the BSD license are still a huge asset to the free software community.
GPL gives maximum freedom to the code.
BSD gives maximum freedom to the programmer/corporation.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Gotta love good old fashioned Slashdot sexism!