3 ms·

The open source part you described is different from non-compete, and is way more common (and makes more sense). https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2016/12/09/devel

The open source part you described is different from non-compete, and is way more common (and makes more sense). https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2016/12/09/developers-side-projects/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2016/12/09/developers-side-pr... offers a good explanation why this is needed from employer's point of view. (disclaimer: I linked that article mainly for the explanation part. I don't necessarily agree with all its advises) I don't know which giant tech company is your employer. But at least Google has a very streamlined internal process you can apply for to let Google release the copyright of your side project to you. (disclaimer: I worked for Google, and in particular worked somewhat close with the people reviewing those cases for a few years)

tombert 6y ago
I don't work for Google, and sadly, while there is a process for getting approval to open-source something, it involves a lot of emails and waiting. I have been waiting since December to submit contributions to the TLA+ model checker.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Sounds very familiar ;) Processes like these make it very, very difficult for employees to work on open source; at most they might have approval for one or two projects that are directly used by the company.
- fishywang 6y ago
  I do agree that your employer's clause are far more restrictive than the common ones seen around the valley and unnecessary.
ghaff 6y ago
It seems a lot of people hear about non-competes being not generally enforceable in California and assume that means it's a nirvana with respect to personal IP/moonlighting/etc. Or even that it means there are never non-competes that will cause a potential employer to walk away, enforceable or not. Lots of California-based companies have strict policies about ownership of projects that you do on your own time. And there are certainly companies outside of California that don't have non-competes and which have liberal policies about open source contributions.

tombert 6y ago

I don't work for Google, and sadly, while there is a process for getting approval to open-source something, it involves a lot of emails and waiting. I have been waiting since December to submit contributions to the TLA+ model checker.

saagarjha 6y ago
Sounds very familiar ;) Processes like these make it very, very difficult for employees to work on open source; at most they might have approval for one or two projects that are directly used by the company.
fishywang 6y ago
I do agree that your employer's clause are far more restrictive than the common ones seen around the valley and unnecessary.

ghaff 6y ago

It seems a lot of people hear about non-competes being not generally enforceable in California and assume that means it's a nirvana with respect to personal IP/moonlighting/etc. Or even that it means there are never non-competes that will cause a potential employer to walk away, enforceable or not. Lots of California-based companies have strict policies about ownership of projects that you do on your own time. And there are certainly companies outside of California that don't have non-competes and which have liberal policies about open source contributions.