4 ms·

They say they're "inspired by" Badoo libraries. That's not enough to call them derivative works, at least for copyright purposes.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
Right! But they were developed while the author was working for Badoo/Bumble. You can't develop something "inspired by" your day job, while working the day job in parallel, and then claim it isn't related to the day job.
- mattalex 5y ago
  Why would it be a problem if they were related to his day job? Keep in mind the libraries he was inspired by are open-source apache licensed code. Your argument only makes sense if you assume the code was related to proprietary tech and not just a piece of code you find on the internet.
- LightHugger 5y ago
  That only works if he wrote them during work hours. If he didn't then why would the company own it? Anything you do off the clock is none of the company's business.
  - hallway_monitor 5y ago
    Generally the company has a claim to closely-related work even if done off-hours. You can't e.g. clone your company's product off-hours, or even make a closely-related product without the companty having a valid claim on that IP.
    - DarylZero 5y ago
      When the company releases that work under an Apache license, they do give explicit permission to everyone to do that.
- White_Wolf 5y ago
  You can, as long as what you are working on was already by management internally. Otherwise... you're right. Would only bring problems if/when someone is set on making your life hard.
- some-more-info 5y ago
  The question seems to be whether it is allowed to create what is effectively a competitor framework (on your own volition and without authorization from your employer, as in the case of MVIKotlin vs MVICore) under your own name (brand), potentially in your free time, but based on designs of an open-source framework managed/developed/maintained by your employer in employees' time. And even if it is allowed, can your employer claim ownership on the basis that your work is derived from employer/company work. However, I think this is unprecedented (I can't think of any similar cases regarding reclamation of IP), and we'd have to be actual lawyers to know the answer. I'm curious to see where this case will go.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

Right! But they were developed while the author was working for Badoo/Bumble. You can't develop something "inspired by" your day job, while working the day job in parallel, and then claim it isn't related to the day job.

mattalex 5y ago
Why would it be a problem if they were related to his day job? Keep in mind the libraries he was inspired by are open-source apache licensed code. Your argument only makes sense if you assume the code was related to proprietary tech and not just a piece of code you find on the internet.
LightHugger 5y ago
That only works if he wrote them during work hours. If he didn't then why would the company own it? Anything you do off the clock is none of the company's business.
- hallway_monitor 5y ago
  Generally the company has a claim to closely-related work even if done off-hours. You can't e.g. clone your company's product off-hours, or even make a closely-related product without the companty having a valid claim on that IP.
  - DarylZero 5y ago
    When the company releases that work under an Apache license, they do give explicit permission to everyone to do that.
White_Wolf 5y ago
You can, as long as what you are working on was already by management internally. Otherwise... you're right. Would only bring problems if/when someone is set on making your life hard.
some-more-info 5y ago
The question seems to be whether it is allowed to create what is effectively a competitor framework (on your own volition and without authorization from your employer, as in the case of MVIKotlin vs MVICore) under your own name (brand), potentially in your free time, but based on designs of an open-source framework managed/developed/maintained by your employer in employees' time. And even if it is allowed, can your employer claim ownership on the basis that your work is derived from employer/company work. However, I think this is unprecedented (I can't think of any similar cases regarding reclamation of IP), and we'd have to be actual lawyers to know the answer. I'm curious to see where this case will go.