4 ms·
Yes this seems much more reasonable. I am not knowledgeable or awake enough to comment with certainty on the "or which are useful with or relate directly or in
by Normal_gaussian 10y ago
Yes this seems much more reasonable.
I am not knowledgeable or awake enough to comment with certainty on the "or which are useful with or relate directly or indirectly to any “Company Interest”" as backtracking to what the 'or' refers to has broken my brain.
But on the whole that is the kind of clause I would expect. It is more than reasonable (I wouldn't invest in a company that didn't) to seek unilateral ownership over company related work, IP and assets.
Thank you for being so responsive, now I feel somewhat obliged to drop GitLab onto our stack of infrastructure proposals.
- sytse 10y agoCool, thanks for your feedback. We'll have our IP lawyer have a look to narrow the scope https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/issues/861 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/issues/861 Feel free to add further context to the issue. Don't feel obliged but of course I do encourage you to take a look at GitLab :)
- tibu 10y agoHungarian law says that the employer can only claim IP rights if there was a clear order from the employer to create the new stuff. I think this is a good approach too.
- e12e 10y agoI'm guessing you should probably double check that section either way, as I would be surprised if the broad language is legally binding. At least in Norway, adding text to a contract that overreach (ie: tries to enforce a clause that is effectively illegal) generally voids the contract (or at the very least that section) - falling back to standard/minimal protection afforded by the law. This would (in Norway) probably be great for your employees, but maybe not what you want as a company. As far as I know, several European jurisdictions would work in a similar way.