>Are there employers that never require employees to work more than 40 hour weeks? Ever? Even "implicitly"? I've seen enough Europeans commenting on this site

>Are there employers that never require employees to work more than 40 hour weeks? Ever? Even "implicitly"? I've seen enough Europeans commenting on this site to say that yes, this is the case as it's illegal for companies in some countries to require employees to work more than that. Even the amount of paid overtime is strictly limited. >Even if at 5:58 PM the elevator breaks and you can't leave until 6:01 PM? I don't think any court (contracts are interpreted by courts) would reasonably consider this as the company requiring anybody to work to 6:01 PM, unless the company sabotaged the elevator. What's a use case at a software company for requiring someone to work over 40 hours that can't be solved by having an extra employee with overlapping shifts? >And even if there is one employer that is willing to make that guarantee, what library is important enough that it must be used and cannot be reimplemented, even given the combined resources of every employer not willing to make that guarantee? Maybe one library is not enough, but if an ecosystem grows, it's possible. Companies don't exactly love the GPL, but adopted software using it where there was no other option. >If a lone developer wants to write software, great, but again it's not an open source license and they should have no expectation of others contributing to it, the way they would for open source. There's been lots of freeware / shareware in the world. It's mostly been out-competed by actual open source. Personally I agree that this license has a low chance of having any effect, but that doesn't mean it's not worth trying.