5 ms·

> I created product on the side as a side project in my own time and it has become a huge hit in the community to a point where my employers wants me to transfe

> I created product on the side as a side project in my own time and it has become a huge hit in the community to a point where my employers wants me to transfer the code-base over. The company does OSS and my side-project is also Open-Source. Let me restate this: You had an idea you were so interested in you created it in your off time. You made it open source. Your company likes it so much they want to contribute to the codebase. You, being the leading expert in this software, are the one most likely to be tasked with working on this codebase. Beyond the obvious "OMG You're going to get paid to work on your pet project!" the concern being that they seem to want to control it. Compensation is probably not going to happen. IF it does then you are pretty much guaranteed they will own and control it. I would advise NOT seeking compensation, and instead saying "omg! I'm so glad you appreciate the work I've put into this open source project. When can I speak to folks about how the current development process of this project and how to submit pull requests?" Keep redirecting the conversation towards them contributing. If they ultimately say they need to control the codebase just tell them that if they're not ok with contributing to the project they can always fork it. They get the control they want and it's probably not worth suing you and against their best interest to fire you, because you're the leading expert in how it works. Side note: I'd switch the license to GPL ASAP. Not because I'm a huge GPL fan but because the GPL can be used as a weapon to prevent them from using it without contributing. Or, it is better at that than any other license. It sounds like you're the sole contributor, so that's probably legally sound. I'd also make some quick improvements that they would not want to forgo since it sounds like they already have the current version under the Apache license.

yolo42 7y ago
It is not that they want me to spend work time on it. They want me to transfer ownership of the project to them. That's the part that I do not wish to do. The way things work at this place, I'll probably end up maintaining the product until I leave my job. The reason for not transferring over is that once I do that, they will essentially not let me create features that I think can be done better using my product, because they exist in some other product.
- nilram 7y ago
  If you don’t want to, and won’t be fairly compensated for it, then how about using the word “No”? I agree with others that talking with one or more lawyers should be a high priority.
- chadcmulligan 7y ago
  Why not negotiate a VP or Product Manager position out of it and a nice pay rise, maybe even a share of the profits. Let them market it and take the risk, you become the man.
- kelnos 7y ago
  If it's open source, you can transfer ownership to them, fork it, and continue working on your fork on your own time, adding whatever features you want. That would likely piss off your employer, though.
- zzo38computer 7y ago
  Are you able to fork it? If so, there is then the issue of who gets to keep the name of the project. Also if you fork it, then now you will maintain two versions of the software (until you quit your job at that company), so that is another consideration. (It is also possible that the versions will not diverge right away, but might simply be a copy until there is some disagreement about what to do with it.)
- pjc50 7y ago
  So then the real question is who maintains creative control over the project. But if you're project lead for it , that would be you? It sounds like there's a lot of "politics" that you're unaware of or not mentioned. Is the project actually in competition with one of your company's products? If they're an open source company, how do they handle community governance and contributions? Do they normally make contributors sign over copyright, like the FSF? Why do you think there would be conflict over features?
- miraculixx 7y ago
  > they will essentially not let me create features that I think can be done better using my product, because they exist in some other product sounds like you created a competing product and made it open source. that spells trouble. Get a lawyer. IANAL

yolo42 7y ago

It is not that they want me to spend work time on it. They want me to transfer ownership of the project to them. That's the part that I do not wish to do. The way things work at this place, I'll probably end up maintaining the product until I leave my job. The reason for not transferring over is that once I do that, they will essentially not let me create features that I think can be done better using my product, because they exist in some other product.

nilram 7y ago
If you don’t want to, and won’t be fairly compensated for it, then how about using the word “No”? I agree with others that talking with one or more lawyers should be a high priority.
chadcmulligan 7y ago
Why not negotiate a VP or Product Manager position out of it and a nice pay rise, maybe even a share of the profits. Let them market it and take the risk, you become the man.
kelnos 7y ago
If it's open source, you can transfer ownership to them, fork it, and continue working on your fork on your own time, adding whatever features you want. That would likely piss off your employer, though.
zzo38computer 7y ago
Are you able to fork it? If so, there is then the issue of who gets to keep the name of the project. Also if you fork it, then now you will maintain two versions of the software (until you quit your job at that company), so that is another consideration. (It is also possible that the versions will not diverge right away, but might simply be a copy until there is some disagreement about what to do with it.)
pjc50 7y ago
So then the real question is who maintains creative control over the project. But if you're project lead for it , that would be you? It sounds like there's a lot of "politics" that you're unaware of or not mentioned. Is the project actually in competition with one of your company's products? If they're an open source company, how do they handle community governance and contributions? Do they normally make contributors sign over copyright, like the FSF? Why do you think there would be conflict over features?
miraculixx 7y ago
> they will essentially not let me create features that I think can be done better using my product, because they exist in some other product sounds like you created a competing product and made it open source. that spells trouble. Get a lawyer. IANAL