Slashdot Mirror
What Do I Do About My Ex-Employer Stealing My Free Code?
An anonymous reader writes "I recently found out that the company I used to work for is removing all the open source licenses (GPL and MIT) from my work, distributing it as proprietary software and taking all the credit despite the fact that they contributed nothing to it. They are even renaming it something really silly. What should I do?"
Search out the journal of /. user TomHudson for one person's experience with this (ongoing, last I heard).
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Get one.
Seriously. Contact a lawyer.
If you wrote that thing while you were working there, then you're out of luck. (I.e. company own the copyright and they have the right to change the license.) Even publishing the original opensource version might cause you some trouble if you can't prove it was originally oss, and you weren't changing the license.
IANAL
1. make sure the code is separately documented with the GPL licences in place, or they could claim it belonged to them in the first place and it was you that stole it.
2. contact the EFF
3. sue for copyright violation
4. profit?
something like that. step 2 is probably the most sensible part.
So you worked for them and where paid by them. You decided to release something as GPL (your post doesn't say if this was sanctioned by the powers that be), but considering your termination, one would think you stepped out of line?
But, the fact is, you where working for them, earning money producing something *they* own. If they decide to revoke a license on something *they* own, they are squarely in their rights to do so.
If the code is compiled (say from C, C++ or whatever), there will be telltale signs of its origin in the binary (unless they removed symbols). Something similar is true for Java. If they're distributing sources then it should be even easier to demonstrate.
Publish your demonstration that they're using OpenSource code, then send notices to various tech media and open source advocates. That might be enough to get the ball rolling.
...They can do what they want with it. Generally, code that you created while employed by a company, on their time, becomes the property of the company. Because they own it, it's their choice whether to license it out as open source or hold it as proprietary. You're not at the company any more, so you have no leverage of being a part of the company, leaving your complaints as your only tool at this point. You can approach your former bosses and coworkers (assuming you left on good terms) and remind them of why you thought it was valuable to release it in the first place. You can go public with a name-and-shame campaign. (but that may burn bridges) Or you can fork the old version (since they can't retract the license already granted) and move on with your life.
Remember, there were no nuclear weapons before women were allowed to vote.
Didn't they contribute your wages? Was it your job to write the code? Was the code written on work time or in work premesis? Most companies own any code written by their employees written on work time or using work rescources ( e.g. software licenses ). Some companies even own code you write at home on your own time on your own computer because you were employed by them at the time - then they truely contributed nothing, but you accepted those terms when you signed the contract.
Why don't you just fork it from the latest version when it still had the GPL/MIT license and release it in a new project? This should be even easier in your situation, because the company decided to change the name of the software, which means you can simply keep using the old name for the new project. This also doesn't confuse users, as they will probably remember and recognize the software by name.
Once you've got the new project up and running, you can of course sue your old employer for distributing open source licensed software without the proper licence and source code.
Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
Standard practice when hiring any employee is to write a legal agreement stating that any work you do there is "work for hire" and they own the copyright, not you. I *think* this can even be implied just by the fact that you were an employee, Unless you took specific action before writing this code, such as giving the company a specific license, or requireing them to let you contribute it, I think you are the one in *possible* legal danger here. (I am not a lawyer etc blah blah).
This is unfortunate but you need to get over the fact that work-for-hire does not belong to you and drop this quickly. The more you drum up publicity around this the more danger you could be in.
Chalk it up to a learning experience, and take solace in that you know what to do next time.
At the last company I worked with I asked my boss (a SVP level executive good enough for legal purposes) to sign a small contract with me that would allow me to bring in my own open source libraries I had built up over the years in exchange for letting me take code written on company time and contribute it back to the library or to an OSS project. I of course said this would not include anything proprietary to a client or any program as a whole, but rather utilities such as a date converter class or caching system. And that it was at my sole discretion to determine as best I could in good faith what code qualified to be contributed to open source.
PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
If you did it on their dime they most likely own the code and can do whatever they want with it. Even if you didn't, they may still own it depending on what your contract says.
Out of curiosity what is the project?
A shark. The sort of guy that makes lesser lawyers wet their pants in fear. Seriously.
With that said: If you worked in the United States and were paid on a W-2 you're basically fucked. Unless you can prove every single keystroke of development on this product was done on "your time" with your own equipment it's almost certainly a work-for-hire under U.S. law, and therefore they own the code, not you.
On the other hand, if you were a 1099 "perma-temp," or selling your services to them as a corporation (i.e. a corp-to-corp arrangement) then who owns the code is an entirely different matter. In that scenario, you would need to look at your contract with them (you did sign a contract, right?) to determine whether you "own" the code you wrote for them. Generally speaking if you're not an employee (and you didn't sign anything giving them rights to your code) then you still own it.
If you live in another country then I have no idea what you should do. Good luck, though. Hate to see people ripped-off by their employer. What this really should be is an object lesson in why any coder with even moderate skill should be insisting on corp-to-corp arrangements. It's extra paperwork for you, and a PITA at tax-time, but if you invent something really revolutionary it's one of the only ways to keep your employer from stealing your idea under the "Work-for-hire" provisions of copyright law.
Of course, as always, IANALBIPOOS.
Who did what now?
Did you do this as a part of your job, or was it something that you developed in your own free time? If you did this as a part of your job, then they own the code, NOT YOU! Even if you developed it in your own free time there are still some situations where your employer can claim ownership of your work. If you are certain that they have no right to claim ownership of your work then I suggest you get some legal help. The best thing to do, if you want to make sure that your employer can't just take your code and claim it as their own, is to never actually bring your code in to work. Work on it at home on your own computer. Don't put it on any computer or server owned by your employer. You might just as well not even tell them about it.
I didn't read the linked article, but I did skim the summary. Depending on the contract that you signed and the local laws, that may legally be their code. If I were you, I'd consult a lawyer familiar with intellectual property before I did anything else. Make sure that you have a copy of the contract. If, in the opinion of the lawyer, the code is actually yours, then you should probably follow up with a cease-and-desist letter, courtesy of the lawyer. This won't be all that expensive. Hell, even if the situation is muddier than you'd like, they may still back down, if you can get your lawyer to send an appropriately threatening letter. Depending on the size of the company, they may not be financially capable of defending themselves from a lawsuit. Depending on how ethically challenged you and your lawyer happen to be, this may actually prove to be your best bet, if they are legally in the right. If they blow you off (which is very likely, unless they're very small), then you're going to have to actually bring them to small claims court. A lawyer is not strictly necessary here, but, again, you'd be foolish to avoid using one.
I mean, seriously, what do you expect people to say, other than "consult a lawyer"?
Learn from it. If they pay, its theirs.
File a formal Copyright registration with the Library of Congress
Do that first.
Then file a DMCA takedown.
Then sue.
Use the resources of the EFF to back up your case. Even if they won't take it on, at least they can point you in the right direction.
--
BMO
You stated you did this separate from work...that makes it yours. If you invented it on their time and dollar, and you were hired as a programmer, they probably own the copyright. But if you did it on your own time, even if you signed some sort of contract, if you invented it on your own time and hardware, you likely have a claim to the code. And if you also GPLed it and made it public, they can't really get rid of it. If they have a claim to the copyright, they certainly can make a proprietary version of it, though, even if it's also GPLed. That's the crux... do they have claim to the copyright? If so, it can be both GPLed (by you) and proprietary (by them).
But if you just post the code, what's the problem? You claim it's GPLed, so posting it is not an issue.
Seriously, what's the problem? Post the code, make it public. Then when they try to make GPL code proprietary, you can simply let someone else go after them. You're whining like you're being harmed. You're not. You're simply trying to prevent someone from stealing, even though nobody is really being harmed. Sticking your neck out for justice reasons is not an issue, as long as you realize you're just trying to "stick it to the man".
Obvious. Have a lawyer send them a lovely letter telling them to cease and desist. If they do neither... sue the fuckraping bitchpiss out of them. What else?
It is not obvious. Who owns the copyright? He said he was an employee, so *IF* the code was "work product" he may only have had the right to GPL the code as an agent of the company. Since he is no longer with the company he no longer would have such authority. If the company is the copyright holder they are free to "fork" it and go proprietary. It is not clear if the code is employee work product so nothing is obvious.
2.) When you get proof they publish/sell your work you get a lawyer to write them a notice of infringement.
When no 1. never happened you are probably out of luck and only an expensive lawyer could help you.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Quite aside from the fact they may own the copyright under the Work for Hire doctrine, you said the code's under the MIT License anyway.
That allows them to distribute the product, or its derivatives with or without source code, under any product name they like!
So:
if the code is a work-for-hire = you lose, they own the copyright
if the code is your copyright = you lose, you've already given them permission to take it proprietary
MobyDobie
FTFS:
I was terminated from a company that I worked day and night for for about 5 years. During the last 2 years of that time, I created a simple web framework and contributed it to open source. We had always used open source, so it was high time we became a contributor! Recently I found out that they have removed all of the licenses from the files (GPL and MIT), gave it a silly name, and have the intention of marketing it as a product. What should I do? I am trying to get past the fact that I am upset that I was terminated â" that pissed me off â" but the fact that they are taking credit for my work and making it proprietary is really bothering me! What should I do?
I just might have found the reason for your termination. Were you doing things that went beyond what your employer allowed you to do? You were employed and you were so called 'contributing' code under GPL without your employer explicit permission to do this, and from the text it looks like you have so called 'contributed' the code that you wrote for your employer.
This is like saying: I took this guys stuff and 'contributed' it for the good of the public, but I didn't ask the guy if he is OK with it and now he is forcing everybody to return the stuff I 'contributed' to him and he called the cops. I am really pissed off, what should I do?
Yeah, I think I did find the reason for your termination.
You can't handle the truth.
Did you do work on the project while on the job or on your employer's premises? Then likely you ceded copyright to them automatically. Anything you do while on work time is a work for hire (and this is generally explicitly spelled out in employment contracts). This means the employer owns it, to their benefit and your detriment. If they own the copyright, they are free to relicense code as they see fit. If you have an old copy of the code licensed under MIT, GPL, or another free distribution license, you can redistribute that code on your own website and they can't do a damn thing about that version, but absolutely nothing is forcing them to continue hosting the open source version, and nothing is preventing them from relicensing the open source version to proprietary as they own the copyright and thus have the right to do so.
Now, if you didn't use your employer's resources to work on the project at all, you might have a case. That's not what your blog post would lead me to believe, though. Your best bet would be to fork the last available open source version and continue working on that. They still own the copyright but they can't do anything about continued redistribution of a fork, assuming it was ever authorized to be licensed as open source at all.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
..for Oracle/sun/MySQL?
***Assuming*** the code in question was employee work product and the company is the actual copy holder this incident raises an interesting issue. If you are the sole FOSS advocate at your company, and you get company approval to release code under FOSS, your "mission" seems to not be over. It seems you have to advocate/convert others if you wish the code to remain FOSS after you leave. If there is no one around who cares then the company is perfectly within their rights to fork the code and continue in a proprietary fashion.
If they didn't agree to the license in the first place... you're screwed. But if they did - screw them. Assuming you made a point of getting your employers approval in writing for the original license - tell them to give you a hefty pay rise or you'll move Richard Stallman and an aviary of his favourite parrots into the lobby, and introduce him to all the major clients as the new Sales Manager - then, take the money and get yourself a job with a future.
Seriously.
Man ... I don't know where you worked (country) but in my French contract it is specified that everything I create in the company is owned by the company.
Seem fair to me, they employ you.
In fact I wonder if you are not the one who made a mistake by making the company stuff opensource without their consent ...
But as I'm really not sure about this, I agree with previous comments, contact a lawyer ...
Is this the project? and if so are you calming that code in the gov.nj.framework namespace wasn't written for anyone in particular?
I not only RTFA, I also read the comments.
And to the OP, I say: tread carefully. Not only is there a possibility that your work would be considered "work for hire" (and hence not yours to decide how to license), you should be careful about making threats. Saying things like:
I’m going to report this to GNU project and warn them that if they don’t bring to code back in-line with the license, that I will send a letter to their customers to make them aware of the situation.
To me, that reads an awful lot like extortion. Not only is that not going to win any friends with your former employer (So what if they fired you? For all you know you'll run into the same people again in the future, don't give them a reason to fire you again), publicly announcing this as your intention is a really bad idea when you've just been sacked and are looking for work.
You created this open source code for them, on their dime, on their equipment, as part of your employment for them, right?
You know how I know you didn't read the article...?
No sig today...
Simplest problem ever ... it is not your code, it belongs to the company that employed you
Sorry to blunt but it is attitudes like that causing issues for IT folks progressing through companies - no other profession (eg engineers, marketing, finance, etc) would dare complain about "not getting credit" if a company went in a different direction with their work after they'd left.
The OP also said, in response to the first guy who asked pretty much everything that has been asked here in the slashdot thread:
Hi Llama, I have no such agreement. It was done on my own time with the company’s full support. They knew it was open source. I think now that I’m not at the company, they want to “control” it. As far as I understand it, they need to abide by the license. I think the tricky part is compelling them to abide by the license
Assuming this is all true (that he had no agreement with the company to cede over his rights to work done on his own time), I seriously doubt that it is legal for the company to do this. It seems to me that he was pretty careful from the outset to ensure that no such agreement was in the contract -- and in that case, by default, the copyright remains with him as the original author.
I’m going to report this to GNU project and warn them that if they don’t bring to code back in-line with the license, that I will send a letter to their customers to make them aware of the situation.
To me, that reads an awful lot like extortion.
How exactly is this extortion? Mere coercion is not extortion. He's not asking for money, property or services in exchange for all of this -- he just wants the source code (assuming it's rightfully his) to be licensed properly and that the company may not sell it as proprietary.
Pet peeve: Profane people propagating perfunctory pedantry.
I read the article
But he is contradicting himself.
In the comments, he says he the project by himself at home.... and even then says he did it with the company's support - indicating some level of company involvement.
In the article, the guy refers to releasing back code, make a contribution, - was done by "we" - i.e. him and the company. THAT IS AN ADMISSION of the their ownership interest.
It's pretty clear the company would believe they had some involvement, and probably ownership of the code. And he believes it too -- And even when later the guy tries to remove the company's involvement from development, he does equivocally and in contradiction of his own earlier statements,
suck it up, and write some new code.
You guys? Not so much.
From this information, it seems they are regarding themselves as the rightful copyright owner. If this is the case, nothing can stop them from re-licensing it as they please. That said, code released as GPL should remain GPL, simple as that, but duel licensing is pretty common.
So the real issue is: who is the copyright owner. The outcome of that depends on the local laws and the contract you had. If you sincerely think you are the copyright owner, you could claim the profit they make from it. Proving you are the copyright owner might be harder, and most of all, costly.
If i were you. I'd just work on your own GPL'd code. Continue to distribute it. Maybe on your webpage dedicate a page to this very issue. And, apart from gathering as much proof as you can to protect yourself from a potentional lawsuit from their side, do exactly entirely nothing, except working on your project and make sure it's better than their product. Making your GPL code better than their commercial code seems to me the best way to get back on them.
A glitch a day keeps the bugs away.
The code appears to have been written on the company's time. No matter what license the guy chose to put on it, it seems he overstepped his authority (if he actually had any authority) and had no right to call the stuff GPL'd. Just because someone puts a GPL license on a piece of code doesn't make it GPL'd. You have to have the right to do that, and merely being the author doesn't make you the owner and doesn't confer that right on you.
Never, ever make the mistake of thinking you own any code you write, just because you created it.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
If the company agreed to open the code under the GPL and is now backing out, then there's a problem. The GPL is non-revokable, meaning there's no way for them to release the code and at some later point change their mind and slap a proprietary license on the same code: that code is open forever. Moreover, there's the viral aspect of the GPL, so if they are using GPLed code in their proprietary product, they still need to release the entire source under the GPL!
However, where the OP may have gone wrong is if he was working on a work-for-hire basis (check your contract), which means he wasn't the copyright holder and wasn't allowed to release the code in the first place.
So by your argument, an employee at Microsoft could publish the entire Windows source code as GPL and Microsoft would have no way of pulling that back?
Try again mister...
If you are the original copyright holder and publish under GPL, then that publication remains so, but you can always choose to re license your work. However, if you did not condone the release as GPL, then it sure as hell can be revoked.
The author changes his story, he stated early that it was done as a we in the company, therefore, it belongs to the company - that statement alone will cause him to lose any trial.
If I do something at home it does not belong to my employer. If I build a shed in my backyard, that does not belong to my employer.
An employer that does this is exploiting you. Employers will try to get things from you for free if you let them.
Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
That's ridiculous. The code that I write at home has no bearing on my work place. It belongs to me and soley me unless I choose to licence it.
It is a violation to go from GPL to closed source and distribute it if you do not own the source code in question.
Rent seeking lawyers do not understand code, they should have no place in deciding ownership and property rights.
Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
Harald Welte started http://gpl-violations.org/ for protecting his rights and the general public license in 2003. Maybe you can get help from that project, at least they have experience in that kind of lawsuits.
You could start a website using the real product's name and offering professional consultancy and services.
That way you can make money of your old product and stick it to your exploitative employer. You can say you were an ex-developer for the product. That way people could trust you.
Get yourself on Google results for the product's name. You could even have a page explaining why you're not an employee anymore, providing the full story. (Them stealing your code.)
Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
IANAL, but... I suppose there is a copyright notice in there somewhere. Is it Copyright (C) 20xx My Old Employer Inc. or Copyright (C) 20xx My Name? Whoever has the copyright gets to choose the license for future versions. If it's your name in the copyright notice, you probably have a better case than if it's theirs.
To clarify, I don't mean make a website and pretend to be the vendor but brand your website as a consultant for that product.
You could use your real name website, John Doe and then have a page called WhizBang Consultancy. "I am an experienced consultant for the WhizBang line of products having 2 years development experience..."
People searching the product name on Google should hopefully find you, you could offer cheaper rates to your ex-employer.
Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
The answer to your Slashdot question is trivially simple: take everything you know to a copyright lawyer, and get a consultation to see if you have a case. Then you and your lawyer decide how to proceed from there.
Do not, Not, NOt, NOT get your legal advice from Slashdot.
The above notwithstanding, do NOT threaten your former employer. If any threats are to be made, or actions are to be taken, leave it to your lawyer. Otherwise, you are just likely to dig yourself a very, very deep legal hole.
You are a professional? Then act like one.
1st of all: Don't get all worked up. Nobody cares squat about your or your former employers web framework, of which there are literally thousands out there. Take the best parts of it, refactor them and contribute them to Zend, Symfony, Cake, Joomla, Drupal, Typo3 or some other big-time project that actually matters (asuming you wrote it in PHP) or something simular for the language chosen. If your Framework is worth anything, you'll be able to do that quickly and join the coreteam of some big-time FOSS webkit in no time and your credit will gain in weeks by orders of magnitude compared to working semi-free for some crappy freeloading web-outfit nobody has ever heard of for the last 5 years.
2nd: If they paid you to write it, chances are they own it, and can do with it as they like.
3rd: If you wrote it on their contract and in your free time and commited significant parts of goodwill into it without getting paid, chances are it's legally dual-licenced ... or some equivalent of that. That means they can do with it whatever they want and you can go on and continue publishing it however you please.
But once again: Nobody gives a shit, so I wouldn't risk legal action from some small-business asshole I once was dealing with if they discover you and think it's sporting to go after some sorry-ass developer who has even less money and power than they. Unless, that is, you have money and time to spare and like to send a small private army of lawyers of yours their way - for fun or profit or both. In that case, be my guest, fetch a lawyer or two and sue them into next wednesday. And please keep us posted on our blog. I, in that case, for one, am going to sit back in my deckchair, grab a bag of popcorn and watch with joyfull glee and delight as some sleazy web-sweatshop gets what they deserve as they are gutted and torn to chunky kibbles by a righfully enraged FOSS deveper. :-) ...
Yet again: Since I guess you've got neither money or extra time to spare, I'd let it be, cover my ass with legal statements on your ownage of the code from some buddies in case they want to get pissy with you in the future and then just carry on with your life. Preferably as a core member of some larger web project actually doing something usefull.
My 2 cents.
FYI: I too developed a FOSS product for a partner pulling in big time projects. We published it as FOSS and, since they brought in fair money, I agreed to dual-licence the code, which they didn't understand at the time. When we parted, they rebranded the product, removed my name, claimed an advancement over the old version - which didn't exsist, aside from a new logo and a flashy website - and disappeared into insignificance two years later. The codebase still is GPL 3 and I'm ready to continue with the product whenever I feel like it. I have witnesses to back my claims should anyone come after me. Which I really don't expect to happen, since I'm halfway cool and professional with my former partners. And I'd redo the codebase completely anyway if I should ever consider picking it up again.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
this is the true value of a backdoor into your code.
You should go back there, burn the building down, and then write them a note explaining that they'd best not fuck with you again. ...and this is why you don't ask for advice on Slashdot.
I don't understand the fuss, if you wanted to keep copyrights you should have let your employer know your intentions and done the necessary paperwork *before* you were terminated.
I was in a similar situation about an year back. I wrote a GPL cross platform application(in my spare time) to interact with my employer's web services(their application was windows only, i didn't even have protocol reference, I reverse engineered the whole thing ). When I left my job, they had all the rights to it, I just renamed the project and maintained it in my spare time. I am working on the newer version of it since my ex employer has added some new features to the web service.
I code for fun, sometimes I do not get the credit I deserve but unless it's something that took me years to write, I won't be too bothered by the application being 'hijacked' as long as I have access to the code I wrote.
Was it ever your decision to make it open source? This sounds like work product to me, which means your previous employers owns it. Unless you have something in your contract that states you retain ownership of your code, it is theirs to do what they please with. Get over it.
Words are only yours until someone else uses them...
Do you own it or do they?
"Hi Llama, I have no such agreement. It was done on my own time with the companyâ(TM)s full support. They knew it was open source. I think now that Iâ(TM)m not at the company, they want to âoecontrolâ it. As far as I understand it, they need to abide by the license. I think the tricky part is compelling them to abide by the license."
I was in the same situation and it really depend on how the support was. If it was pre-paid financial support , then definitively it could very well fall into work-for-hire. If it was only technical support the company won't have any standing in many juridiction. If on the other hand they paid money *after* the work was done it gets murky. In my case I explicitly requested per writing that the copyright of the work is mine. If I was this guy I would really hire a lawyer before getting sued by the company.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
As silly as this might sound, take them to court. The GPL and MIT licenses are just as valid as any proprietary pos that there swapping them for. I don't know exactly how this would work or even if you could do it but if you wrote the software and you did all the work on the software then I'm sure there is a clause somewhere that protects your time investment in your creation.
Or if you still have the software dump it on line and open a bug finding contest for finding exploits into the software. I'm not sure what happens when the license is changed out on a later version, would this effect the early versions as well?
Synopsis: Nobody has any idea what the specifics of this guy's employment arrangement were, nor how the employer came to be in possession of the disputed code. Several people have asked for more details, but the picture remains murky. All suggestions and comments--well-intentioned though they may be--are therefore based on speculation. (Oh, and prostitution either is or is not a victimless crime or not-crime.)
1 the dispute whether a pice of code written on your free time but used on your job is your copyright or your employers copyright is complicated. i woild argue that using/testing the code at work and then magically switching roles when leaving the door is prpblematic
2 it seems your former employer has not tried to sue you for gpling the code. i would recommend not to stimulate a legal test whether this was lawful but let them ignore the issue for some time (that would make their decision to gpl it a better legal fact since possible damages are not caused by you alone)
3 thay being said ot was probably stupid to mention it here. by this you did the maximum damage to your former employer. everybody pf relevance will now realize there is a free alternative. and your employer will realizw this too
4 it would be nice if people understand there is a difference between copyright and license. if i own code i can release it under any license i like.
5 the best for both of you, you and your employer would probably be to sign a short agreement that you wont sue each other abput this and that none of you talks about this. you may have fucked up the latter point already.
You say
I was terminated from a company that I worked day and night for for about 5 years. During the last 2 years of that time, I created a simple web framework and contributed it to open source. We had always used open source, so it was high time we became a contributor!
Were you an employee?
If you were an employee, and you created the "simple web framework" on company time, you will want to check your employee agreement and/or handbook. It almost certainly says that anything you create on company time belongs to the company.
Was your job writing "a simple web framework"?
If you were hired to write "a simple web framework", you did not have the right to "contribute it to open source". Regardless of your feeling about whether it was "high time we became a contributor", the work was not yours to contribute. You were doing "work for hire" and you do not hold the copyright on the work created. Rather, your employer holds the copyright and is the one who gets to decide to contribute it. As such, they are within their rights to fire you for any number of reasons from insubordination to attempted theft of intellectual property.
Remember, boys and girls, when one is hired to do work for a company, the product of that work does not remain one's own, instead it becomes property of said company who hired one to do the work. This is called "work for hire" and is covered in the copyright laws.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
then it's more a case of you "stealing" their code and sticking GPL/MIT licensing on something you don't own the copyright to.
Of course is derived from GPLed code then that licensing is required in the first place.
It sounds like he's written his own code in his own time that he volunteered to the project. If so, then what the business is doing is just as wrong as downloading open source and then claiming it to be their own.
the fact is, you where working for them, earning money producing something *they* own
Not necessarily. I write my own libraries at home, so that code is entirely mine. Then, when working on client projects, I sometimes volunteer my libraries, meaning that I'm paid to put them in. But the libraries are still mine, just as any other 3rd party library belongs to its creator. And if one of my clients claimed "creation dibs" on my code, then I probably would be a little miffed too.
But it's not stealing, right? You still have access to the code your wrote, no? Or are you claiming they took away your copy of the code? You gotta love all the mental gymnastics on this site about how piracy isn't theft yet the violation of the copyright to OSS code is almost always called "stealing" or "theft".
It all depends what was in your contract (and it also depends on which country you live in). If you wrote the code during the day at work, it certainly isn't yours. If coding is your dayjob, and you also code in your sparetime, you should certainly have it correctly stated in your contract that anything done in your sparetime is yours and your boss can't lay claim on it (unless ofcourse it's based on work you've done during the day), otherwise you're in a situation which you are residing in now. Yes your boss can lay claim on your code you've done in your spare time, because it is very propable that you've thought or even worked on it during your dayjob. If you were a busdriver or something it wouldn't be possible for your boss because it's a completely different line of work.
And removing the license is in the same line, if they 'own' the code they can do whatever they want with it, even if you put whatever license on it.
As I said, it depends on the laws of your country, but in the united states/UK/Netherlands I know this to be true. So make sure you've have it written in your contract that your boss cannot lay claim on your code you've written in your sparetime so you won't be in a situation like this (it makes it easier for you to do something about it if he does use your code without your permission).
If that was a law, no businesses would ever be founded. (Look how many companies started up from ex-employees with other ex-employees.)
Many people have ideas while they're at work but they may be completely unrelated to the employer's industry.
What you say is very concerning as it reflects the break down of the individual and a person's right to free thought.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjMCaw4qzjg
You know talk is cheap and those rumours aren't nice? When I fall asleep I don't think I'll survive the night...
Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
So by your argument, an employee at Microsoft could publish the entire Windows source code as GPL and Microsoft would have no way of pulling that back?
If that employee had management sign-off on the action, which by the sounds of it the OP did, then yes, they wouldn't be able to do that. As long as somebody had received a copy and accepted the terms of the GPL.
Get a lawyer and be prepared to fight.
I would point out that removing licenses is a deliberate action so they either think they own the copyright, or they’re a pack of sleazeballs that stole your code on purpose. Either way it establishes they are not willing to negotiate so if you want to prevail you are going to have to fight.
If you used company resources to develop it, then you were an idiot for not getting their permission in writing.
But consider also if you have more to lose by fighting this.
Suing your ex boss is probably a career ender, and your ex boss knows that.
Finally, no matter what happens, next company you work for, get an agreement in writing that makes this “work for hire” relationship (or lack thereof) explicit and don’t count on the law to side with you. Writing does something legal assumptions cannot, namely, establish facts.
If your next boss (if your legal troubles don’t make him shy about hiring you) isn’t willing to sign any such agreement, take it as a sign they are going to try to grub whatever you do.
This is a world full of cheats, liars, and thieves. You should ALWAYS get things in writing.
....Did you write the code on company time and/or resources?
Regards;
Ask the GPL Compliance Lab. That's what they do.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I've been laid off twice in a 20+ year (so far) coding career. It sucks, but it's usually nothing personal. Some angel investor money didn't come through, some sales contract didn't get signed, and now they have to cut staff. It happens. I've never been out of work more than a month.
Look at it from the company's side. They probably paid you a lot of money to build software for them. They may not have given you permission to GPL your code, or more likely they didn't understand or didn't care about the legal aspects of open source development. It may be hard to distinguish between the code your wrote on your own and the code you wrote for them, especially if you were a contractor working at home.
Emotionally, you should separate the circumstances of your leaving the company from the behavior of the company with respect to your GPL code. Suppose you had gotten a better job and left voluntarily. Would you feel the same way about your former employer using your open source code?
Consider approaching the company and say that you'd like to continue development on your toolkit as an open source toolkit. They'll probably agree. I live in a 4M pop metro area, and I am always running into people I worked with before. If you get a reputation for burning employers, it will come back to you eventually.
You find that most of the free GPL lawyers are too busy to help. If it really matter to you, borrow the cash for an IP lawyer. You WILL NOT WIN if you don't have proof that your company in an signed document said it was OK to GPL the code. If you have that, then just run with your fork and call it a day, and wait until they come after you. As long as you were an employee (W-2) of theirs, even if you worked at home, that code is theirs. If it was legally GPL'd then it is everyone's, and this discussion is pointless. If your were a contractor for them (W-9?). Then it depends on the terms of your contract, . Don't expect to pay less than $10,000 for a decent IP lawyer if there is any conflict between you and the ex-company. Chances are you're going to have to take your lumps and walk away, but IANAL. I just know that I JUST finished paying my lawyer, and my employer and I have a GOOD relationship. It took 2+ years, but now I have a decent contract with them that clearly states what I own, and what they do. Also remember, you can always start from scratch, and if you haven't rewritten your code for the first time, you probably need to anyway, regardless of the legal situation. :)
Why would you write this?
Who would upmod this?
Ok, this argument fails hard. Lemme explain why:
1) An employee at Microsoft wouldn't have created the entire windows source code by himself, uncompensated. That's foolish and isn't like the given example at all. What were you thinking?
2) If you, being the owner of the property, publish something under the GPL, you could only "re license" it so far as you still adhere to the GPL, which mean they could not strip off the GPL, and stop giving credit to the authors. You could add additional licencing, I guess, like you need to twiddle your fingers when you download it. If it's GPL code, the companies actions are in clear violation.
But that's only if the code was GPL'd by it's owner. If he didn't keep his project strictly separate from his company, unfortunately it means the company has a claim to it. It's supposed to keep employees from running off with the things they're working on and forming their own company, but I kinda think it's over the top. It comes down to if he got his employer to write down in some retrievable document that they agreed to GPL the code. Like an e-mail.
Report them to the BSF for using pirated software (yours) and sit back and rub your hands together menacingly as they release the hounds!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
What else? Have all the evidence you would need to firmly convince a lay person that specific rights have been abridged. Once you can do that, and I mean *really* do that, where a reasonable lay person (one slightly biased toward the company!) will accept your side and will agree that you have damages that can be compensated for, then the costs of "having a lawyer" will diminish dramatically and your chances for success will increase.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
1. Did you write it on work time. 2. Even if you did not write it on work time, did you write it whilst employed there, after signing a contract signing over rights to all works you produce (whilst under their employment) related to the industry you work in, to the company?
If either 1 or 2 are true, then sorry, the company owns it. Workplace contracts: read them.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
When prostitution becomes legalized in an area, demand outstrips supply, prices go up enough that traffickers move in [...]
This would be as opposed to when it's illegal, thus the supply of legal services = 0, so traffickers *necessarily* move in? How is that better? And really, that's like saying that we shouldn't allow poor people near rich people, because when the demand gets high enough, there will be theft -- as if we, as a society, had never invented a justice system to deal with these situations, where a demand exists that shouldn't be supplied. As long as prostitution is illegal, those who are *not* consenting cannot make good use of the justice system to protect themselves.
No, because allowing prostitution shifts the demand curve.
No, that analogy does not work, notably because we consider slavery and the repeated rape of teenage girls to be far worse than theft.
No, because with good laws and good training, a non-consenting victim can still count on the justice system for help. We are not there, but we are getting better.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
You lost me at "company I used to work for". If you did this on their dime then they own it. It doesn't matter your attachment to the code, it isn't yours. They are free to do what they wish with it. Your only option is to rewrite it from scratch and learn a lesson from this experience.
I have a question regarding this.
Isn't it illegal to own person's private time this way?
I think, even though a contract says so, it should be not valid. As far as I know slavery was abolished in the US some time ago. If a company does not pay you for your out of work time, then they have not right to whatever you do then. I would understand using company equipment (or rather company offices, because even any equipment, when used at home is rather considered as rented), or doing something within your working time, but what you wrote seems to me as a form of slavery.
The argument, that your additional home time work would affect your paid work should also not sustain in a court, because in case you cannot fulfill your duties, your company has the right to end the contract, but not to own someone's private time.
Even if a company payed for someone's training, it is still weird, i.e. I would understand the right to demand compensation for any training if one quits within certain limited time of the investment.
I am really interested in a layer's opinion on this matter, i.e. whether US law really would make such a contract valid, and on what basis. Doesn't it violate some basic principles of every human being freedom?
You say it is 99% of contracts, do you mean in IT or in general in the US it is the case? It is really shocking that people accept such conditions. Is it really so bad in the US that people are so desperate to get a job, or they simply do not care, or maybe in most of the cases are not aware of anything?
If you're a programmer, ask permission before using LGPL. If you want to use ANY GPL source, get permission in writing, letting your employer know the benefits vs. dangers of using GPL in a commercial product.
As a programmer, your job is to provide quality code that does what its supposed to do, using licenses that benefit the employer.
If you're an employer of programmers, you need to make sure you specify in writing that employers are not to use GPL in any of their work unless you want to live by the GPL.
Of course, if you're a programmer and come on board and a some of the source code is already GPL, then its a good idea to have a discussion about the future direction of their intellectual property.
Jeeze guys, have some common sense. Most businesses aren't hiring you to improve repository of free source code... they're out to make a buck by selling software/services that aren't available anywhere else.. so they can make some money over and above what they pay you.
Find a lawyer, and talk to the EFF yesterday, if not sooner. They have lawyers and money, and this is what they *do*.
mark
I guess if you're not an environmentalist: one concerned with conserving valuable properties of the eco-systems which, among other things, sustain us, you must be a vacuumist: one who is convinced humans are clever enough to live in a stripped-bare, repurposed, fully engineered world with no help from non-human natural life processes. Well why don't you launch yourself into space in an advanced tin-can for the long haul and see how well that works out for you.
Have you ever considered how many fewer prostitutes there might have been hanging out on the street if society had supported them better without inducing guilt and shame?
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
It is probably less work for a programmer like you to rewrite code than to fight some company over a few open source projects.
I probably wouldn't even try to fork the GPL versions, because who knows if that company is going to come after you for releasing the code. Even if they have no case, they could still cause you some real legal expense. Also, keeping that project up to date would only make it easier for them to steal the updates and integrate them into their internal version.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I don't necessarily advocate criminalizing the person who is having paid sex. Criminalizing--or at least punishing--the person who pays for it might be a better solution. John School can work wonders, as well. (Not for everyone, but definitely for some.)
And actually proper training decreases harassment and abuse of prostitutes by law enforcement.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
get a laywer. Once you have it copyrighted, the laywer can sue the pants off them :)
Only 'flamers' flame!
Such a union is completely unnecessary. It's really simple: Don't agree to bullshit contracts. Cross things out, walk away if the potential employer won't accept that.
I'd be rather skeptical that such a contract would be enforceable in court anyway, since it is just another potential means for the company to go after you if you siphoned-off their intellectual property or worked on their nickel for your own stuff. When you sign something like that, it makes it that much harder for you to claim something as your own unless you can prove it was all original work, done on your own time, and with your own resources. Any grey areas, and they probably do have a claim to your work. It's like a non-compete agreement, which are probably not worth defending unless there's an egregious violation of trust (e.g., the departing employee stealing clients).
That aside, it's really on the individual to look out for his own interests. This is the only point I agree with Ayn Rand's diatribes on-- a limited application of rational self interest. That's the rationale behind unions, but it isn't limited to a union framework. It behooves every working individual to determine his/her own value and to refuse to accept less or sell-out in unconscionable ways. I have outright laughed at laughable job offers, and I would sooner work in retail for $8/hr than disrespect myself and damage my profession working for $12/hr in an IT job that really should be paying well over $20/hour. Some poor, desperate fools do that, rather than holding out for a fair wage, I'm sure of it. Unions are really just a way of enforcing the situation where nobody can be stupid and sell-out everyone else because its an all-or-none contract.
There is a reason that unions tend to be limited to labor & vocational trades and not professions. Anyone thinking IT is suitable for unionization should consider that it's much harder to quantify professional work and qualifications, but unions rely on standardizing the worker and then basing a contract off that. Each worker must fit exactly in the mold. That means everyone is assumed to have the same level of skills (based on the level of seniority and training), excellence, and overall productivity. That's why "not my job" is the Union mantra-- you must do your job and you WILL be punished for doing more than what your contract allows you to do. IT is really specialized and so many folks wear so many hats, I wouldn't see that working well, and while the protections of a contract are nice to have, they limit your freedom to set your own value and to actually just get your job done. It's really much better to have associations of individuals that let them compare notes and encourage everyone to do right by themselves and by their colleagues, but without being bound by union rules.
Personally, one thing I always do during an interview is check on the company's IP policies. All companies I have worked for have thus far can be summarized by the following:
any work done on using company resources (time, equipment, etc.) belongs to the company
However, some employers (and academic institutions) take anything you create in any manner while you are employed with them (or are a student at the institution).
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a history of providing legal assistance in GPL violation cases.
Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
If it's consenting and safe, who cares if the demand curve shifts?
Who's talking of making it legal and acceptable for teenagers to be enslaved and raped? We have laws against exploitation of children, regardless of industry. (Well, almost. I don't get why farm and rail industries get so many exemptions from labor laws.) [Also, I could have used murder in my analogy, but didn't. So sorry. Trump you later?]
You could go a long way to helping and encouraging people to use the justice system if you don't shame them and pursue them for what is their job either by choice, by circumstance, or by force, if you didn't mis-use the justice system's resources pursuing the wrong crimes. Society has a weird feedback loop where if we make something illegal, we by extension make it morally wrong, rather than the other way around. So before they can get help from their friends, family, and society at large, you have to change the law, to change the attitudes.
Ever wonder how many fewer women and children would be sold into slavery if prostitution were less tolerated? You think if brothels were legal and well regulated that the sex slaves would be a thing of the past? In Amsterdam on the fringes, many of the women are slaves. Sure, in the legal brothels, the women do it willingly, but if you think the only prostitutes in Amsterdam are in the legal brothels you are naive or stupid. Any place where prostitution is legal or tolerated, there are more sex slaves.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
That's not the only way to read it. It could be something he did on his own time, and proposed to his manager that it (HIS gpl code) be incorporated into a project they were working on in the company which would inevitably force the whole project into gpl licensing. That would explain the 'we' without automatically making everything the property of the company.
The real upshot is that we don't have nearly enough detail here, and the only real advice we (the /. community) can give is talk to a lawyer (giving an imperial butt-ton more detail) before saying anything else in public. Suing is expensive, 30 minutes or an hour of a lawyer's time to discuss whether you have a case isn't quite so expensive.
FGD 135
According to the legal system here in Italy related to I.P. made under employee contract, everything you create is I.P. propriety of the company you work for.
What you can do is to oblige them to report your name (you're the inventor/author of it). This stands also for GPL code.
Special care should be kept even when you're producing some software at home (even without using company's assets or knowledge) - the famous EWS (Employee Written Software). They could easily switch back to their I.P, so should be careful.
Since they have released the code as GPL once, you have the right to fork it and continue or just publish such code (not by them derived).
Just think about the MySQL / MariaDB SQL case.
IANAL, but I don't think he has a leg to stand on. His claim appears baseless to me.
Everyplace I've worked has an employment agreement which all coders must sign, and which cedes all rights to all software they develop during the term of their employment. Such agreements usually contain a way for new hires to declare pre-existing projects they were working on beforehand, but I'm presuming that he never declared this project. In which case, the software belongs to the company entirely and they can do whatever they want with it.
The code author may have been a contractor rather than an employee (it's hard to tell because he omits important details on his blog). If he was a contractor, then he still signed an agreement with the company, and whatever he did is still their property.
It even seems possible that they can revoke the GPL license if they wish. He says on his blog: "We had always used open source, so it was high time we became a contributor!" which suggests that he made the decision to attach a GPL license by himself, on his own authority, even though he was not the copyright holder. In which case, the GPL license document was invalid, and the software was never really licensed under GPL. Especially if he was a contractor, in which case no employee of the company has ever released the software as GPL, or attached a GPL license document to it.
Of course I'm not a lawyer and he should hire one if he wishes to pursue this, but if I were him I'd just drop it.
Instead of spending the money on legal fees, why don't you use that money for aggressive advertising? They want to steal your code? Fine - then steal their potential customers away! Passive-Agressive FTW.
I agree that shaming is a problem, although I don't agree that changing the law is necessary to work on attitudes. There are programs today where officers are being trained not to look down on prostitutes automatically and not to revictimize trafficking victims, a common problem among untrained law enforcement officers.
Shifting the demand curve is important. If you can pay for sex, but at the cost of increasing the chance of a sixteen year old being raped, then you have an option that can lower that chance. Society en masse sometimes makes decisions which lower the chances of crime, even if an activity is innocuous to the innocent--for example, public parks often close after dark.
In terms of resources, if the justice system cut back on prostitution but increased resources on going after pimps, it would be a net positive. But I find the demand curve shift too problematic--and the consequences too severe--to legalize.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
most employment contracts let the company OWN YOUR ASS, even outside of work hours and using your own equipment, even doing work not related to the core business of the company ... we tried FOR A MONTH to negotiate some contracts that would allow me to work on my DIY audio hw/sw/fw stuff and not have them own it.
Strange, most contracts I've seen, and contracts described by others, do make provisions for exceptions. At my previous employer is was part of the standard HR process for new hires to list personal projects that you wanted a waiver for. It was quite easy to get a waiver for proejcts unrelated to work. One coworker had a personal project that did overlap with the company business, the company said he could only fix bugs in the existing code and not add new features or other enhance the overlapping project. YMMV.
release the code make it clear with the code that it is what they are reselling that should harm their profits to start with then get a lawyer
Did you bother to read the thread or did you just go into auto knee jerk reaction mode?
GP claims, once something has been released as GPL it cannot be undone. I gave a counter example showing his argument was invalid. So 1. my argument does in fact not fail and 2. up modding it is spot on, so there. Now go troll some kids instead.
once something has been released as GPL it cannot be undone.
YES. He claims that because it is true. Once it is GPL'd and released, anyone and everyone can now enforce that license, and part of the license is that you cannot remove that license. The code is free, from all those who would want to steal it away. Including you, the original author. Anything derived from the GPL'd code is like-wise GPL'd. There is no such thing as "unlicensing" the GPL.
Sorry, but you're simply wrong.
I gave a counter example showing his argument was invalid.
Your example was shit and even you should be able to see that. Grow up, grow a pair, admit when you're wrong, and learn how the world works.
One interesting clause to add to contract terms
may be interesting and to this point.
Authorship: The authorship of code I write for the company
shall contain my name and dates of authorship.
The value to me and the company is that I am proud of my
work and would like my authorship to be famous in the
company and in the context of a company buyout or takeover.
I would also like to be visible as an author or inventor when and if the
company elects to publish the code under GPL or patent ideas
embodied in the code any other transfer.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
So you are really saying that, if someone releases proprietary code they do not own as GPL, then GPL license is so holy and so right, that no other laws will be able to stand in it's might, thus fore fitting all rights from the entity being robbed?
What, no of course not. Didn't you see my first post?
Ahhhhhh, I see what happened here. We've tripped on semantics. You think that if stolen code has a GPL slapped on it, it would later be revoked. Yeah, no, me and that one guy don't see it that way. You can't GPL stolen code and if that scenario happened, there would be no GPL'd code to revoke. At no time would such code be under the GPL, and everyone who thought so would simply be wrong. But this much is ironclad: Once you GPL something, IT CANNOT BE UNDONE. The question is if it was really GPL'd to begin with.
And that question is not trivial. We cannot allow corporations to decide that they didn't really mean to GPL some code, they can claim that a rogue employee did it and simply abolish the license and everything that was derived from it.
Where does corporate responsibility lie? Ask yourself, who releases code to the GPL? A company or a person within the company? Much like the barrier between personal projects and company projects can be easily breached, if a company acknowledges the GPL on one of it's projects, say, by an employee viewing and agreeing to the GPL, then the company should be complicit with the license. And we all know no one actually reads those things.