4 ms·
Properly assigning IP rights is very important to us and it is hard to get right. This is standard language to ensure it is taken care of. If you have side pro
by sytse 10y ago
Properly assigning IP rights is very important to us and it is hard to get right. This is standard language to ensure it is taken care of.
If you have side projects (many of us do, for example https://github.com/jneen/rouge https://github.com/jneen/rouge is maintained by our team member Jeanine Adkisson) we recommend you email us the name to have an granted exception on record. If you want we can also add it to your hiring contract. We never declined such an exception.
But if there is an IP lawyer that wants to make an alternative proposal for this language we're all ears.
- oneplane 10y agoThat is some excellent and honest language to describe why you put that in the contract the way that you did. Often people don't understand why it's there, and assume malicious intent to "steal" the private work of employees, but as shown in this case, it's simply an IP issue that cannot easily be resolved in a different way as far as you know. Reading your comments on the various places this discussion is happening, your clear and honest answers make me (and probably others) like GitLab even more!
- tastythrowaway2 10y agoYou are incorrect in your assumption that it cannot easily be resolved. It would be trivial to declare it limited to a smaller domain - specifically the domain in which gitlab operates. As it stands now it is limitless in scope. as pointed out by many others, this is not reasonable.
- oneplane 10y agoIf that is the case, you should definitely offer your legal advice to GitLab.
- tastythrowaway2 10y agoI happily would but would like to retain the option to mow my own lawn.
- Normal_gaussian 10y agoIt would help if you limited it in scope to related areas. The scope of the current wording is beyond ridiculous. As it stands the clause effectively prohibits anything done by someone employed by you, regardless of whether it has anything to do with the company or not. Parts 15 and 16 are worded as IP and business protection. 14 is certainly over-reaching. Taking the wording you have used it would appear that an employee has to request written permission from their boss to do practically anything: * Participate in a code dojo or hackathon * Assist a friend in moving * Help someone change a flat tyre * Change your own flat tyre The absurdity of the examples follow directly from the absurdity of the restriction placed upon people accepting the contract. Whilst an individual sensible enough to read the contract would likely raise issue with it, it is all too easy to pressure them into signing anyway with phrases such as "standard language", leaving all the rest not sensible enough trapped. I also note it is ironic that you suggest an external lawyer gives free advice on rewording, presumably this lawyer would have to foresight to have pre-approved giving such advice with their boss as they operate under their standard contract? Of course I understand this is very likely a complete oversight. And that GitLab is very unlikely to have any malicious intent in this. However I do find the existence of such a clause very alarming.
- kbaker 10y agoFor reference: 14. Additional jobs Other than with the prior written permission of the Employer, the Employee is prohibited during the term of the Employment Contract to carry out work – either paid or not – of any nature whatsoever, either for himself and/or for third-parties. Yeah, seems a bit much...
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y agoIt should at least qualify the domain(s) with which the work pertains to. Like I can't mow the lawn for the little old lady next door. Or take my friends kids to school.
- tlrobinson 10y ago"... either for himself and/or..." Can't mow your own lawn either. And if you're an Orthodox Jew you can't use an elevator or oven.