3 ms·

I mean. You can just always ignore what lawyers say, and just work on open source projects under a pseudonym while you're employed there, which is what the OP d

by Aunche 7y ago

I mean. You can just always ignore what lawyers say, and just work on open source projects under a pseudonym while you're employed there, which is what the OP did anyways. The worst thing that happened to the OP is that he pissed off some lawyers, and got into an argument with a guy. Also, Google can't own any of your code you did before you're employed there, just any new code from when you're employed by them.

danShumway 7y ago
> The worst thing that happened to the OP is that he pissed off some lawyers, and got into an argument with a guy The worst thing that happened to OP was that he lost control of his project. > I ended up having to hand over maintainership of usbmuxd. ---- > You can just always ignore what lawyers say, and just work on open source projects under a pseudonym while you're employed there I am not a lawyer, but this seems like very bad advice. Even ignoring the potential legal risks, many Open Source maintainers like to be able to talk openly about their projects using their real names, especially at conferences, to friends, and to future potential employers. Even ignoring that, some side projects aren't Open Source. I'm working on commercial, proprietary software outside of work. My company knows it. Even if I wanted to keep it a secret from them, there's no real good way I could do so -- at a certain point, most commercial software gets linked to real people. You're taking on a lot of extra risk that could potentially turn into a nightmare during a discovery process later.
- Aunche 7y ago
  > I am not a lawyer, but this seems like very bad advice. That's kind of my point. Millions of people have been employed by companies with similar policies, and undoubtably many of them chose to ignore the "correct" legal moves because it's just easier. If Google really wanted to screw people over, they could, but that doesn't seem to be happening.
  - danShumway 7y ago
    > If Google really wanted to screw people over, they could, but that doesn't seem to be happening. But again > I ended up having to hand over maintainership of usbmuxd. What's your personal criteria for getting screwed over? From my perspective, it already happened with OP.
    - Aunche 7y ago
      I mean like take ownership of a project or start up based on a technicality. Taking someone's app money would be another one. I don't think that making someone else maintain your project is unreasonable, especially if that someone can be a mysterious anon that comes in at the right time.
      - yarrel 7y ago
        The "maintainerr" is the "owner" in this context.
marcan_42 7y ago
I actually didn't piss off the lawyers; the lawyer working under cdibona was a nice guy, and his contributions to the email thread reasonable. cdibona alone flamed me, and then personally banned me from the process. I hear he's not in charge of that department any more. Maybe that's why the policy is less onerous now.
- Aunche 7y ago
  I see. I appreciate the clarification!

by Aunche 7y ago

danShumway 7y ago

> The worst thing that happened to the OP is that he pissed off some lawyers, and got into an argument with a guy The worst thing that happened to OP was that he lost control of his project. > I ended up having to hand over maintainership of usbmuxd. ---- > You can just always ignore what lawyers say, and just work on open source projects under a pseudonym while you're employed there I am not a lawyer, but this seems like very bad advice. Even ignoring the potential legal risks, many Open Source maintainers like to be able to talk openly about their projects using their real names, especially at conferences, to friends, and to future potential employers. Even ignoring that, some side projects aren't Open Source. I'm working on commercial, proprietary software outside of work. My company knows it. Even if I wanted to keep it a secret from them, there's no real good way I could do so -- at a certain point, most commercial software gets linked to real people. You're taking on a lot of extra risk that could potentially turn into a nightmare during a discovery process later.

Aunche 7y ago
> I am not a lawyer, but this seems like very bad advice. That's kind of my point. Millions of people have been employed by companies with similar policies, and undoubtably many of them chose to ignore the "correct" legal moves because it's just easier. If Google really wanted to screw people over, they could, but that doesn't seem to be happening.
- danShumway 7y ago
  > If Google really wanted to screw people over, they could, but that doesn't seem to be happening. But again > I ended up having to hand over maintainership of usbmuxd. What's your personal criteria for getting screwed over? From my perspective, it already happened with OP.
  - Aunche 7y ago
    I mean like take ownership of a project or start up based on a technicality. Taking someone's app money would be another one. I don't think that making someone else maintain your project is unreasonable, especially if that someone can be a mysterious anon that comes in at the right time.
    - yarrel 7y ago
      The "maintainerr" is the "owner" in this context.

marcan_42 7y ago

I actually didn't piss off the lawyers; the lawyer working under cdibona was a nice guy, and his contributions to the email thread reasonable. cdibona alone flamed me, and then personally banned me from the process. I hear he's not in charge of that department any more. Maybe that's why the policy is less onerous now.

Aunche 7y ago
I see. I appreciate the clarification!