Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Real Name For Open Source Development?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the my-name-is-guy-ingonito dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Do you contribute to open source projects under your real name or a nickname? The openness of open source can be encouraging, but software patents you have never heard of can become a nightmare if a patent troll sues for implementing 'their' scroll bar. A real name also means you end up in the big index we call search engines. An assumed name could be an additional layer of protection, but what are its pros and cons and is it worth the hassle when asked to participate in a meatspace meeting?"

11 of 262 comments (clear)

  1. probably overkill by seanadams.com · · Score: 5, Informative

    An open source project is an unlikely target for a patent troll. Trolls by definition are not in business actually implementing the technology that is the subject of their patents, so your open source project doesn't hurt them directly. Unless you're making lots of money selling your open source software, there's not much they can hope to sue you for.

    If you are looking to for personal liability protection then you should create a corporation under which you do all your software development, which might even include hobby or GPL work. This is probably overkill, but it may be a good idea if you think that there's any possibility of building a business around your hobby work in the future. In that case you might be able to claim some tax breaks for the cost of your computer, internet connection etc.

    Hiding behind a pseudonym is only helpful in the case where you are doing something very illegal or commercially disruptive, in which case you need to do a lot more than just choose a handle, eg offshoring, money laundering etc. See online casinos, spammers, and porn sites for ideas...

    1. Re:probably overkill by purpledinoz · · Score: 2, Informative

      As a general rule, I only use my real information if I have to (like if you sign up for paypal). I don't see a harm in using an alias wherever you can. In fact, I think it's a good policy for everyone.

    2. Re:probably overkill by tgd · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, no, if you're looking for personal liability protection, buy a personal liability insurance policy.

      $2m in liability coverage is a couple hundred dollars a year. If you have any assets (and you'd have to in order to be concerned about liability), its an absolute no-brainer to buy an umbrella policy.

      People are sue-happy these days.

    3. Re:probably overkill by julesh · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, no, if you're looking for personal liability protection, buy a personal liability insurance policy.

      $2m in liability coverage is a couple hundred dollars a year. If you have any assets (and you'd have to in order to be concerned about liability), its an absolute no-brainer to buy an umbrella policy.

      People are sue-happy these days.

      And the cost of a lost patent-infringement suit could easily top $2M. You should be looking for at least $10M cover, if you ask me.

      Or, as the GP suggests, simply use a limited liability corporation, which will cost substantially less. You can form a company which will cost about $150 in the first year and about $50 per annum thereafter, and if it isn't trading commercially you won't need to hire an accountant etc (just read a few books on how to look after it). If anybody is stupid enough to sue it you just file paperwork to fold the business. Sure, they'll end up owning copyright to your work, but as you've probably GPL'd it, that's not particularly helpful for them...

  2. Another Con by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I bothered to read every letter of a contract I signed with a company I once worked for and it had the peculiar verbage something to the effect of "... every idea or product developed by the employee during their employment at CompanyX is intellectual property of CompanyX." I got some clarification which resulted in the understanding that that particular phrase was left open so that if I went home and wrote an NLP engine from scratch while I was employed, it was their intellectual property. Let's just say at that time I needed the money and my foot in the door so I did take that temporary position.

    From that early moment on, all contributions have been pretty darn anonymous. Remember, you're not just protecting yourself, you're protecting other OSS developers, other OSS companies and more importantly the users.

    1. Re:Another Con by Zordak · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, that's not "peculiar." Pretty much every employment contract will have a clause like that (more generous employers will just grab IP "related to your work," but read that broadly). And for the most part, it's enforceable.

      There's also a problem with your anonymous contributions. The open source projects you donated code to are now tainted. If your employer decides to sue you for whatever reason, they'll ask in discovery for you to produce all IP you created while employed. Sure, you can lie and hide the stuff you did, and they may not find out. But if they do, you'll get sanctioned, and the judge will not be your friend after that. Bottom line, take those clauses seriously. If you're doing something unrelated and you really don't think your business is interested, get a signed release for your project. Or better yet, tell them up front that you work on unrelated open source projects, and ask them if they'll agree to a narrowly-crafted exclusion in the employment agreement. They may say yes.

      I'm a lawyer, but this post isn't legal advice. Don't rely on it for any reason.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    2. Re:Another Con by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 3, Informative

      You won't need the funds to litigate it. The suit is a non-starter (in the US.) A clause, worded exactly as the OP stated, would be limited to work directly related to the company that employs you. In other words, if you work for a software company, only innovations directly related to their area of specialty would be covered by the clause and not all software inventions.

      Any case not related to the companies direct business would not be allowed to proceed.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    3. Re:Another Con by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      This is Slashdot ... your legally sound post has no place here.

  3. Re:Real, of course. by mark_wilkins · · Score: 2, Informative

    > As a pure unpaid contributor of source code you have no patent liability.

    Unfortunately, that's not true. Actually, as an unpaid, noncommercial USER of a software product, you CAN have patent liability.

    Patents extend to the right to control all development and use of derivative technologies whether commercially or noncommercially.

  4. Staying off the radar... heh heh by w0mprat · · Score: 2, Informative

    There are ... security related... projects one may contribute to, that one would tend to use a nickname instead of ones real name... ;)

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
  5. Apache does this right. by jaaron · · Score: 3, Informative

    Apache strips attribution from source files to avoid anyone feeling they own a particular bit of code instead of the community in general. Authorship is maintained through the issue tracker and the subversion commit records.

    Moreover, no contributions to Apache are anonymous. All contributions through the issue tracker require the submitter to provide a license for use of the work in Apache. All committers who provide significant works are required to sign a contributor license agreement.

    Apache is one of the most thorough open source projects when it comes to ensuring we have clear rights for the works we distribute.

    --
    Who said Freedom was Fair?