3 ms·
Slashdot can get a little heavy on the FOSS evangelism, but I think it's fair to say the company is being underhanded. Think of it this way: the company wants
by mdasen 18y ago
Slashdot can get a little heavy on the FOSS evangelism, but I think it's fair to say the company is being underhanded.
Think of it this way: the company wants to hire him because of the open source project. To rephrase: the open source project got him that job. As such, it is logical that the open source project could get him other jobs in the future - possibly several. By agreeing to a non-compete on that project, he is agreeing that it will never be a selling point for his future employment since he can never work on that code again.
I'm perfectly fine with developers spending their time on closed source projects. I'm perfectly fine with a company demanding that their code stay proprietary. What I think is crazy is a company demanding that you give up what got you the job with them.
That is, unless this is being treated as an acquisition. As such, the author should be entitled to a sweet buyout deal. But that isn't the case here. The author is being ladened with the conditions that should apply to a buyout deal without the buyout payoff. If you founded a company and produced proprietary code and another company came along and wanted it, you'd ask for a buyout (of your company, of that project, whatever). Pay day! Here, the company wants that kind of control without paying for it. Not ok.
- tptacek 18y agoIf the company can pony up enough money to convince the developer to permanently move his efforts from the open source project to their product, what's "not ok" about that? Companies are entitled to offer money in exchange for goods and services. Developers are entitled to consider accepting money in exchange for their services. The only condition that's been "laden" onto this deal is a noncompete, which actually strikes me as reasonable, as the company has every reason to believe that this person will work in their spare time on a project that will cannibalize their own market. Again: they're not forcing him to do anything. They're saying that if he'd like to move from open source to commercial development full time --- at least for the application he's working on now --- they'll pay him to do that. Most developers would be happy to face that kind of decision. Only on Slashdot is it considered a tragedy.
- Herring 18y agoYeah because slashdot (as part of "the open source community") has something to lose but isn't a part of the economic decision. This isn't a moral cause & there's no need for strawmen. Nobody said anyone's forcing anyone, nobody said developers aren't entitled to work for money. There's a lesson here to be had.
- netcan 18y agoPrevious jobs qualify you for future jobs. Do you think you should get a sweet buyout deal because you need to stop working at your old job?
- DanielBMarkham 18y agoI know this is going to seem like a strange concept to some, but this is called negotiation. The guy is in a good position and has nothing to gripe about. Now sharpen up those skills and have some fun, guy! You're doing something somebody wants to pay you money for. Good job!