11 ms·

> Apple doesn’t let employees contribute to unapproved OSS projects (even in their personal time). Wow, that seems petty. And it enrages me enough that if I wo

• senderista 7y ago
  It was the same at Amazon when I was there. You couldn't even work on your own game on your own time.
  • falcolas 7y ago
    Being the status quo for technical companies doesn't make it legal, moral, or fair.
    • aeonflux 7y ago
      But why is this not legal, moral or fair?
      • falcolas 7y ago
        Because it creates an unreasonable restriction on your life outside of work. Its somewhat unprecedented in the global market as well. Proofreaders are not prohibited from reading books. Concept Artists are not prohibited from creating art. Writers are not prohibited from writing. Teachers from teaching. Workers from volunteering work.
        • aeonflux 7y ago
          As I pointed in other comment - restrictions on life outside work are common and reasonable. Most people can't work competitors after work.
          • patcon 7y ago
            It seems odd to consider "the commons" as a competitor... feels petty, like: "If we can't have it, then you can't even gift it to the human collective."
          • ac29 7y ago
            > Most people can't work competitors after work. Non-compete clauses "are automatically void as a matter of law in California" [0], where Apple is based (though they have offices in other states and countries). I wonder if a ban on open source contributions would fall afoul of this law (I suspect yes, though Apple can afford pretty good lawyers). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California
          • BossingAround 7y ago
            How is that fair? Apple pays me for 8h a day, why can't I work another 4h a day for Google if I choose to do so? Now, disclosing secrets, that's a different matter. If I go to Google to inform them of amazing killer project Apple wants to do within 5 years, that's called corporate espionage. No reason why I couldn't work for multiple companies though. In fact, I don't even see a reason why I should even tell these companies I work for multiple companies.
            • umvi 7y ago
              > Apple pays me for 8h a day, why can't I work another 4h a day for Google if I choose to do so? You can, if you are being paid by the hour. But you probably aren't being paid by the hour, you are probably collecting an annual salary which means you might be expected to work 8-10 hours per day, not work for other companies, and other restrictions.
              • BossingAround 7y ago
                Even though my contract states yearly salary, that salary is calculated by $hourly_rate * 8 * $number_of_work_days_in_year. That's specifically stated. My contract also specifically states that I agree to work 40 hours a week. Maybe this is not the case in a typical US employment contract?
        • egypturnash 7y ago
          Most big animation studios have contracts that say “we own everything you draw while you work for us”. Or at least they did when I was in the industry around the turn of the century.
          • bigiain 7y ago
            A friend of mine had to put his PhD on hold when his company was acquired by Oracle, who tried to force him into signing "their standard employment contract" which effectively granted them ownership to everything he thought while employed by them. It took 3 or 4 months and 5 or 6 levels of management above his new boss before getting "an extraordinary one-off exemption" to allow him to finish thinking/writing his thesis and allow the university to publish it (as required by the terms of completing the PhD...) Everyone was _pretty_ sure that would have been unenforceable here in Australia - but that there's a serious practical difference between what is and isn't enforceable in contracts, and going up against Oracle's legal team even when they're on the wrong side of the law. So he just "stopped thinking" for several months until he (temporarily) had written permission to think non-Oracle thoughts...
        • jariel 7y ago
          It's definitely not an unreasonable restriction for most, and those who don't like the policy don't have to work there. Your examples aren't helpful because the don't address the issue, which is risk. In the examples provided there's really nothing about the 'personal work' that puts the employers position at risk. Which is why, by the way, schools don't generally defy teachers from teaching on the side. Or proofreaders etc.. In fact such limitations are rare outside industries with IP issues. Apple is a $1T company and all of that valuation is up for grabs by litigious people of various kinds who can use any kind of side-show tactic interpretation of the law to make money. So imagine someone 'working from home' on the 'same computer' that they use for work. What counts as 'work time' vs. 'personal time' when flipping back and forth between activities? How will a judge view this? Then you have competitive problems: you work on 'iMovie' for 1 hour, then you work on 'MyMovie' (personal) the hour. This creates ugly conflicts of interest. Then you have liability issues if Apple is seen to be contributing to an OSS without the right legal bits in place. It doesn't matter that it 'shouldn't' be a problem, what matters is that a bad actor + a lawyer can possibly make enough of a fuss to convince a judge that there's a problem 'Apple's contribution to this OSS code materially affected my business and it was no clear in the liscencing' etc.. As we've seen with Google/Uber, this stuff is very expensive, very strategic, can be very ambiguous, which is bad. There's so much grey in the equation, and so much at risk, it's simply not worth it for Apple and Amazon. So if you want to work there, that's it, you can't make games. It'd be nice if there were some kind of regulatory issues around it, but it'd have to be clear. I also think they should be nice enough to 'wave' people's rights to do certain things, like work on specific OSS projects.
        • nemothekid 7y ago
          I feel like everyone is focusing on the wrong part of the Invention Assignment Agreement. The problem isn't that employers want to force you to not work on anything else (Apple might). The problem is, if you go home, and work on a work related problem, who owns that work. The obtuse case is I work for your company as the lead engineer making TVs. All the TVs can't display blue. I then go home have an epiphany, and develop a method for making TVs blue. We fix the problem and call it day. Later still, I leave the company and sue you for infringement because I technically came up with the solution outside of work and therefore I own that code. This is the situation most companies are trying to avoid. If you solve this problem without having the company own everything the programmer does in and out of work, then you can have stricter walls between work and home projects.
        • jedberg 7y ago
          > Writers are not prohibited from writing. Most are actually. If you're employed as a writer, you can't just go and write what you want without permission from your employer. They usually get the right of first refusal, meaning that you have to show it to them first and if they want to publish it then they get to do so.
  • Twirrim 7y ago
    It changed a bunch when I was there (2013-2016). You were allowed to when I joined, but you had to get permission and the process was a complete pain in the arse and took forever to navigate. By the time I left, you still had to get permission but the process was extremely quick and simple, as long as it wasn't on competing technology. The one hard exception was game dev which remained a firm no-go, for reasons that never really made sense (Claim at the time was because Amazon had its own game studio?!)
    • onion2k 7y ago
      (Claim at the time was because Amazon had its own game studio?!) https://amazongames.com/ https://amazongames.com/ make games and a game engine called Lumberyard https://aws.amazon.com/lumberyard/ https://aws.amazon.com/lumberyard/ that's based on CryEngine.
      • solarkraft 7y ago
        Sure. But why does that conflict with Amazon devs making their own games? If anything it seems like the engines could benefit from it.
        • abj 7y ago
          Not defending Amazon, I'm an indie game dev who wants to own his off work hours side project. But Amazon Game Studios is releasing a game called "New World" this year. [1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_(video_game) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_(video_game)
    • mabbo 7y ago
      I'm still here. The process now is "don't ask, just read the policy and follow it in however you interpret it, but we'll sue you later if we disagree with your interpretation".
      • vkou 7y ago
        That's how Amazon handles non-competes as well. Are they going to enforce your non-compete? Who knows, just sign on the dotted line, and don't ask any questions.
• wlll 7y ago
  Is that even legal? In my mind, if you want to dictate what I do in my non-work time, you pay me for the time.
  • non-entity 7y ago
    I cant say for sure, but I'd imagine so. As long as what you are doing isn't protected by some law, I imagine a company can discipline / fire you for whatever they please.
  • aeonflux 7y ago
    Almost every company tries to force non-competition clauses in agreements. Even if they let one do side gigs, one can't work for competitor. This does sound reasonable and yet is a limitation on what you can do in your spare time.
  • bcaa7f3a8bbc 7y ago
    By default it's not. However, if you join FAANG, chances are that you'll be required to sign a contract that basically says "I waive my rights of doing side-projects to to the greatest possible extents under the laws of California". When speaking of contributing to open source, Google generally has a more positive image, but there are still occasions that something could only be released after being reviewed by the legal department if it's work-related. On the other hand, Apple is known to have strict restrictions.
  • saagarjha 7y ago
    Yes, due to certain provisions in California Labor Code which allow for curtailing what you can do in fields that compete with your employer (in a large company, this generally means anything could fall under this).
  • cosmotic 7y ago
    In some states, it is not legal for employers to take ownership of employees work off hours using their own equipment. Most employers still sneak these into their employment agreements even though they can't be enforced.
  • 7y ago
• Rochus 7y ago
  Their secret police will still come after you, even if you change jobs.
• robenkleene 7y ago
  While I agree with you, I also find Joel Spolsky's blog post on the subject to be a thought provoking view of “side projects” from the employers' perspective https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2016/12/09/developers-side-projects/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2016/12/09/developers-side-pr...
  • SeanLuke 7y ago
    Right off the bat Joel makes what appears to be a very serious mistake regarding work for hire. His opening logic is as follows: - When you hire a contract photographer to make some pictures, he owns the copyright on those pictures even though you hired him. - The same goes for your programmer employees. They own the copyright on their work. - Therefore you need to require your programmer employees to sign an agreement to sign their work over to you. I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's a gross misunderstanding of work for hire. If someone is your employee, they are doing work for hire and you own the copyright on their product. Photographers own their work because they were independent contractors and thus their work was not work for hire. I believe work for hire doesn't apply to patents, thus possibly justifying a patent agreement. But seriously, this (AFAIK) broken explanation is his opening justification?
    • ilamont 7y ago
      > When you hire a contract photographer to make some pictures, he owns the copyright on those pictures even though you hired him. Depends on how the two parties set up the deal. If you want the copyright or to change the license in some way that gives you (the publisher) more rights, the agreement will spell out those details and you could up spending more (maybe a lot more). I sometimes work with professional photographers and for pre-existing work I pay for a non-exclusive license that costs less than a commissioned piece. I also use stock photography extensively which works in a similar manner. For commissioned photography or design work I'll insist on owning the copyright and the agreement will spell out that it's not work-for-hire: To the extent that the Provider’s Work includes any work of authorship entitled to protection under the laws of copyright, the parties acknowledge and agree that (i) the Provider’s Work has been specially ordered and commissioned by Publisher as a contribution to a collective work, a supplementary work, a translation, or such other category of work as may be eligible for treatment as a “commissioned work” and a “work made for hire” under the United States Copyright Act; (ii) the Provider is an independent contractor and not an employee, partner, joint author or joint venturer of Publisher; (iii) the Provider’s ’s Work shall be deemed a “commissioned work” and a “work made for hire” to the greatest extent permitted by law; and (iv) Publisher shall be the sole author of the Provider’s Work and the Work, and the sole owner of original materials embodying Work and the Work, and/or any works derived therefrom. Of course, the photographer or designer can opt to reject these terms, or make additional demands upon the publisher (more money, the right to use images in their own promotional materials, etc.) Not sure how it works with independent contractors doing programming.
• DonHopkins 7y ago
  Next thing ya know they'll prohibit their employees from playing Factorio, because it's too much like programming.
• cameronbrown 7y ago
  What's next? Banning unapproved use of maths? I mean, what if you invent the next million dollar equation without giving it to Apple... can't have that. Also, I guess if you're a hardware engineer... well, I guess you can't use your tools to fix your car anymore. Search engineer? No more regex's for you.
  • m463 7y ago
    MIT math is ok, but GPLv3 math is a no-no.
    • cameronbrown 7y ago
      Definitely wouldn't want to use viral licenses for maths, would we?
• m463 7y ago
  Apple engineers are prohibited from eating lunch with friends at other companies in the valley (because of the things you have to sign to get a visitor badge for lunch)
  • ghostpepper 7y ago
    As someone who works at a company that provides no free lunch / on site cafeteria, this does not seem so draconian. You can just see your friends at a restaurant?
  • jjtheblunt 7y ago
    Since when, and says who? My grad school friend(s) at Google visited Apple, and I visited elsewhere similarly, when working at Apple HQ. Not scandalous in the least.
    • m463 7y ago
      I have a friend at apple, who cannot eat lunch at companies that require you to sign an NDA to get a visitor badge. There are many companies that have this setup. It could be his level of employment. Or it might be that it doesn't apply to all apple employees, or they don't know, or they don't bother.
      • jjtheblunt 7y ago
        That could be. Eating lunch at Caffe Mac was just print a visitor badge and walk across the quad with visitor. Maybe some campuses require transiting team-specific lockdowns, but Infinite Loop for lunch did not.
  • chipotle_coyote 7y ago
    Uh, I've eaten lunch with Apple engineers at One Infinite Loop, and I worked at another company in the valley at the time. I have also eaten lunch with Apple engineers when they came to visit other companies in the Valley, and have even eaten lunch with Apple engineers at restaurants that weren't at other companies. Off-topic: remember eating lunch at restaurants?
• Igelau 7y ago
  > if I worked for Apple I'd immediately start looking elsewhere for a job Ooh that's a good one. I nearly snarfed my Pepsi.
• taywrobel 7y ago
  That’s a major part of why I left Apple for GitHub. Their OSS culture is horrible there. The only OSS projects that get approved to contribute to are ones where they’ve already hired most of the people that work on it. Cassandra, Mesos, and some other infra stuff come to mine. And occasionally they just buy a whole OSS company for their own use (FoundationDB). Submitting a patch to a small library you use? A multi-month process to be told no in the end 90% of the time or more. Have your own OSS projects? Not any more you don’t. In my exit interview I made my reasoning clear, and pointed out that as they move more into services and away from pure hardware as revenue, it’s going to be a bigger issue. Whether they agree or will work to fix it, only time will tell.
  • cameronbrown 7y ago
    Genuine question, what's the value of providing feedback in an exit interview. At best you get nothing from it, and at worst you get put on some secret hiring blacklist. Either way nothing changes, you're just a datapoint in some HR piechart.
    • ukd1 7y ago
      This. I presume it's hoping if enough do it, they'll be forced to change.
    • taywrobel 7y ago
      Genuine answer - I have a metric shit ton of Apple stock after being there for several years. I want to see the company succeed, purely for financial reasons if none other. At least until I hold the stock for a year and only pay capital gains on it. Secret hiring blacklists don’t exist. And if they did, I wouldn’t want to work at a company that uses them anyways.
      • thawaway1837 7y ago
        There’s a lot of confidence there for lack of hiring blacklists when Google, Apple, etc are known to have shared hiring data with each other to underpay new hires.
• outside1234 7y ago
  Especially since, under California law, what you do with your personal time on personal hardware is yours, regardless of employment contract.
  • larkost 7y ago
    Citation needed. That is not Apple's lawyers' opinion. It is also not the interpretation of this San Jose law firm: https://www.sacattorneys.com/san-jose-intellectual-property-firm-explains-assigning-rights.html https://www.sacattorneys.com/san-jose-intellectual-property-... The relevant quote is: "It is legal to require an employee to assign intellectual property created in the employee’s own time if it required any of the employer’s tools, facilities, or intellectual property, or if that intellectual property relates to the employer’s business or research and development." Since Apple operates in a wide swath of the IT world, it is very likely that most OSS developed by Apple employees could reasonably be considered "relate[d] to the employer's business". That is certainly the position that Apple takes in most case (source: I am a former Apple employee).
    • mgomez 7y ago
      I believe the person you're replying to was referring to section 2870 from the California Labor Code: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=2870 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... "(a) Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer’s equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information except for those inventions that either: (1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer’s business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or (2) Result from any work performed by the employee for the employer. (b) To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports to require an employee to assign an invention otherwise excluded from being required to be assigned under subdivision (a), the provision is against the public policy of this state and is unenforceable."
• winter_blue 7y ago
  This policy is so ludicrous and morally offensive, that I would just willfully break it, and if they find out, throw a party to celebrate them firing me (for contributing to OSS projects). Imagine you use KDE, and find a bug, and make a small PR with a patch for it. I can't even begin to fathom how a company can while being fair/just say that you're not allowed to do so (without "our approval" which could take months). It's ridiculous beyond measure, and we should make it a goal to purposely get fired for doing OSS, and then also make sure to post about it online as much as possible so it draws a lot of attention, and hopefully results in a change in this. After all, it's probably a piece of cake to land a new job (once the COVID crisis is over), if you have a Big N company on your resume, even if you were fired from it (not that you'd want to preemptively disclose that - unless you went public with it - which some folks might even see as a positive).
• pacamara619 7y ago
  Isn't it illegal for Apple to tell employees what to do in their personal time?