5 ms·

I recently learned from a github discussion that if you work for Amazon, Google etc. you are also not allowed to work on any open source projects, even on your

I recently learned from a github discussion that if you work for Amazon, Google etc. you are also not allowed to work on any open source projects, even on your free time without their permission.

Gaessaki 10y ago
Would it be possible to link that discussion?
- therealmarv 10y ago
  sure no problem with that. Learned it here: https://github.com/tekezo/Karabiner/issues/660#issuecomment-275594562 https://github.com/tekezo/Karabiner/issues/660#issuecomment-... then googled about it (what irony) and then found out this is common practice at big tech companies in USA.
- ominous 10y ago
  Interesting. This is from 2010, but random googling took me here: https://github.com/snapframework/snap-server/commit/5e4850d4cb74c75e706df509b90befc95263746a https://github.com/snapframework/snap-server/commit/5e4850d4... The situation is quite simple: - pre-existing work I contributed to this project remains under my copyright - contributions other people make to this project remain under their own copyrights - contributions I make to this project subsequent to November 2010 are under Google copyright - nobody should really give a shit about this because a) I freely agreed to this even though Google has a process where I could have asked to retain my own copyright because b) the code is BSD licensed and you can use it however you like regardless of who owns the copyright. ~ https://github.com/gregorycollins https://github.com/gregorycollins
  - uiri 10y ago
    This is correct with respect to Google's process. When it comes to Amazon, you have employees sending patches upstream anonymously because the company culture is against contributing anything back to the open source community.
knorker 10y ago
It's true. Because with tens of thousands of employed engineers sometimes employees actually go "hey, I can improve this open source ad network search engine whose mission statement is to take business from google", and that is why they can't have nice things without getting a quick approval first.
- paulgb 10y ago
  The "quick approval" iirc involves emailing a VCS diff for every pull request for manual inspection. Google is a great employer but this is something I don't miss.
  - knorker 10y ago
    It's not as bad as that. It was never "every" and it's been improved a bit not too long ago too.
quantumhobbit 10y ago
My company has a policy of allowing you to work on open source after getting approval from legal. It also seems that all emails to legal are routed to /dev/null . I wouldn't be surprised if other companies act the same way.
jMyles 10y ago
This is obviously untrue, as evidenced by the multitude of people here on HN and at PyCon and other conferences who work at Google and routinely work on open source projects. edit: I see - I initially misread parent. Yes, some Googlers are work-for-hire.
- yorwba 10y ago
  They presumably asked for permission first.
  - jMyles 10y ago
    Ahhh, right. I initially misread.
hobos_delight 10y ago
Yes, basically. For open-source projects where google retains the copyright you don't need special permission (it is part of your job, basically). For personal stuff or where you wish to retain the copyright then you will need it assigned to you.
- tankenmate 10y ago
  Except in California and Illinois as state law forbids these types of terms in contracts; and as an employee or contractor by law you are sometimes not even allowed to sign theses rights away. [0] [0] 'Moreover, some states, including California and Illinois, have laws that limit the effectiveness of assignment-of-inventions agreements where the invention was created outside the inventor's employment with the company.' -- http://www.masudafunai.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=5942 http://www.masudafunai.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=5942
  - Thrillington 10y ago
    Washington state has that as well!
al452 10y ago
See also: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2016/12/09/developers-side-projects/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2016/12/09/developers-side-pr... And HN comment thread thereon: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13142327 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13142327
ex_amazon_sde 10y ago
Ex Amazon employee here: Amazon requires employees to obtain written permission even to contribute in your free time and this makes many developers unhappy. However the company does not claim copyright or patents on work-unrelated ideas and (closed-source) projects.
- pricechild 10y ago
  What happens if you don't obtain permission? Do you get fired, or do they claim ownership?
  - mijoharas 10y ago
    Ex Amazon: You are in breach of contract which is grounds for termination. I doubt that would happen in practice though, unless you were creating an open source competitor to something they do or somesuch.
    - ghurtado 10y ago
      > I doubt that would happen in practice though, Having to worry about it is horrible enough, since this will actually keep many developers from pursuing their passions in their free time.
- jack9 10y ago
  > Amazon requires employees to obtain written permission even to contribute in your free time I would never agree to this. Generally, if you work at a place that commonly throws around the phrase "<X> is in breach of contract which is grounds for termination.", you're in a bad job that will not ever teach you anything or advance your career. You are working as a glorified contractor and should learn some warning flags to avoid the terrible corporate bus stops.
driverdan 10y ago
As a developer / software engineer you have plenty of opportunity. Do not sign contracts with such one sided clauses.

I recently learned from a github discussion that if you work for Amazon, Google etc. you are also not allowed to work on any open source projects, even on your free time without their permission.

Gaessaki 10y ago

Would it be possible to link that discussion?

therealmarv 10y ago
sure no problem with that. Learned it here: https://github.com/tekezo/Karabiner/issues/660#issuecomment-275594562 https://github.com/tekezo/Karabiner/issues/660#issuecomment-... then googled about it (what irony) and then found out this is common practice at big tech companies in USA.
ominous 10y ago
Interesting. This is from 2010, but random googling took me here: https://github.com/snapframework/snap-server/commit/5e4850d4cb74c75e706df509b90befc95263746a https://github.com/snapframework/snap-server/commit/5e4850d4... The situation is quite simple: - pre-existing work I contributed to this project remains under my copyright - contributions other people make to this project remain under their own copyrights - contributions I make to this project subsequent to November 2010 are under Google copyright - nobody should really give a shit about this because a) I freely agreed to this even though Google has a process where I could have asked to retain my own copyright because b) the code is BSD licensed and you can use it however you like regardless of who owns the copyright. ~ https://github.com/gregorycollins https://github.com/gregorycollins
- uiri 10y ago
  This is correct with respect to Google's process. When it comes to Amazon, you have employees sending patches upstream anonymously because the company culture is against contributing anything back to the open source community.

knorker 10y ago

It's true. Because with tens of thousands of employed engineers sometimes employees actually go "hey, I can improve this open source ad network search engine whose mission statement is to take business from google", and that is why they can't have nice things without getting a quick approval first.

paulgb 10y ago
The "quick approval" iirc involves emailing a VCS diff for every pull request for manual inspection. Google is a great employer but this is something I don't miss.
- knorker 10y ago
  It's not as bad as that. It was never "every" and it's been improved a bit not too long ago too.

quantumhobbit 10y ago

My company has a policy of allowing you to work on open source after getting approval from legal. It also seems that all emails to legal are routed to /dev/null . I wouldn't be surprised if other companies act the same way.

jMyles 10y ago

This is obviously untrue, as evidenced by the multitude of people here on HN and at PyCon and other conferences who work at Google and routinely work on open source projects. edit: I see - I initially misread parent. Yes, some Googlers are work-for-hire.

yorwba 10y ago
They presumably asked for permission first.
- jMyles 10y ago
  Ahhh, right. I initially misread.

hobos_delight 10y ago

Yes, basically. For open-source projects where google retains the copyright you don't need special permission (it is part of your job, basically). For personal stuff or where you wish to retain the copyright then you will need it assigned to you.

tankenmate 10y ago
Except in California and Illinois as state law forbids these types of terms in contracts; and as an employee or contractor by law you are sometimes not even allowed to sign theses rights away. [0] [0] 'Moreover, some states, including California and Illinois, have laws that limit the effectiveness of assignment-of-inventions agreements where the invention was created outside the inventor's employment with the company.' -- http://www.masudafunai.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=5942 http://www.masudafunai.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=5942
- Thrillington 10y ago
  Washington state has that as well!

al452 10y ago

See also: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2016/12/09/developers-side-projects/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2016/12/09/developers-side-pr... And HN comment thread thereon: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13142327 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13142327

ex_amazon_sde 10y ago

Ex Amazon employee here: Amazon requires employees to obtain written permission even to contribute in your free time and this makes many developers unhappy. However the company does not claim copyright or patents on work-unrelated ideas and (closed-source) projects.

pricechild 10y ago
What happens if you don't obtain permission? Do you get fired, or do they claim ownership?
- mijoharas 10y ago
  Ex Amazon: You are in breach of contract which is grounds for termination. I doubt that would happen in practice though, unless you were creating an open source competitor to something they do or somesuch.
  - ghurtado 10y ago
    > I doubt that would happen in practice though, Having to worry about it is horrible enough, since this will actually keep many developers from pursuing their passions in their free time.
jack9 10y ago
> Amazon requires employees to obtain written permission even to contribute in your free time I would never agree to this. Generally, if you work at a place that commonly throws around the phrase "<X> is in breach of contract which is grounds for termination.", you're in a bad job that will not ever teach you anything or advance your career. You are working as a glorified contractor and should learn some warning flags to avoid the terrible corporate bus stops.

driverdan 10y ago

As a developer / software engineer you have plenty of opportunity. Do not sign contracts with such one sided clauses.