One of the reasons that California's tech sector is dominant, and that California has such a history of innovation, is that California law does not enforce non-compete contracts except in very narrow circumstances.
IAAL, and as someone who has litigated these cases before, I suggest to any employee that they attempt to negotiate a California choice of law clause in their employment contracts, especially if they work in California or for a company based in California.
There is a "work for hire" doctrine, but it's not nearly that broad. If you are an employee, then stuff you write at work is presumptively owned by the employer. If you are an independent contractor, the waters are more murky. Either way, this problem can avoided if your contract specifies who owns the IP for the code you write. That's the best solution.
Fair point. Two issues. First, in that instance, Linus isn't replacing the role of the FSF as the holder of the rights to sue? Other contributors to the work are essentially assinging him their rights.
Second, take it up a level. Suppose I write some code that ends up in the kernel, and I want my stuff GPL'd. Suppose someone else distributes the kernel as part of a larger work under the GPL (a distro, for example) and claims a compliation copyright (much like Linus has done with components of the kernel) What happens then? If someone copies the part of the kernal I wrote, and uses it in violation of the GPL, who has the right to sue? Me? Linus? The distro copyrighter?
This is just something we need to be aware of as an issue.
It seems to me that the FSF arrangement for licenses has a big leg up on other open source arrangements, because it is clear who (the FSF) holds the ability to sue a violator of the license. What's your view of the oft-discussed problem of how to figure out who has standing to sue a GPL violator if there are lots of folks who have contributed to the GPL'd work? Is the only solution the aggregation of rights in an entity like a foundation or trust, the approach the FSF has taken?
EchoStar and Gilat are two of the several investors in StarBand. Just because StarBand is bankrupt doesn't mean it's investors must be bankrupt too - for the same reason that Webvan's, E-Toy's, etc. creditors didn't come after all of their stockholders.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the reasons that California's tech sector is dominant, and that California has such a history of innovation, is that California law does not enforce non-compete contracts except in very narrow circumstances. IAAL, and as someone who has litigated these cases before, I suggest to any employee that they attempt to negotiate a California choice of law clause in their employment contracts, especially if they work in California or for a company based in California.
There is a "work for hire" doctrine, but it's not nearly that broad.
If you are an employee, then stuff you write at work is presumptively owned by the employer. If you are an independent contractor, the waters are more murky.
Either way, this problem can avoided if your contract specifies who owns the IP for the code you write. That's the best solution.
Fair point. Two issues. First, in that instance, Linus isn't replacing the role of the FSF as the holder of the rights to sue? Other contributors to the work are essentially assinging him their rights. Second, take it up a level. Suppose I write some code that ends up in the kernel, and I want my stuff GPL'd. Suppose someone else distributes the kernel as part of a larger work under the GPL (a distro, for example) and claims a compliation copyright (much like Linus has done with components of the kernel) What happens then? If someone copies the part of the kernal I wrote, and uses it in violation of the GPL, who has the right to sue? Me? Linus? The distro copyrighter? This is just something we need to be aware of as an issue.
It seems to me that the FSF arrangement for licenses has a big leg up on other open source arrangements, because it is clear who (the FSF) holds the ability to sue a violator of the license. What's your view of the oft-discussed problem of how to figure out who has standing to sue a GPL violator if there are lots of folks who have contributed to the GPL'd work? Is the only solution the aggregation of rights in an entity like a foundation or trust, the approach the FSF has taken?
EchoStar and Gilat are two of the several investors in StarBand. Just because StarBand is bankrupt doesn't mean it's investors must be bankrupt too - for the same reason that Webvan's, E-Toy's, etc. creditors didn't come after all of their stockholders.
I second that. Still has paperwork burdens of a corporation, but no double-taxing.