4 ms·
he went to work for a company we were a vendor for Sounds like he's getting paid to work on the same thing by a slightly different stakeholder. I'd happily pa
by michaelt 5mo ago
he went to work for a company we were a vendor for
Sounds like he's getting paid to work on the same thing by a slightly different stakeholder.
I'd happily pay $$$$$$ to hire someone with commit access to Cloudflare, AWS or Google's codebase who could fix the goddamn bugs, let alone add new features.
- ErroneousBosh 5mo ago> Sounds like he's getting paid to work on the same thing by a slightly different stakeholder. This honestly sounds like the sort of thing I'd sit down with the employee, their new employer, and various "Compliance Team" members, and firm up a bit. Sounds good for everyone. We get our bugs fixed, $vendor gets to say "Well we have this thing that was developed in-house for BoshNet, that might solve your problem too, it's going to cost you <some comical amount>", and everyone's happy.
- lazide 5mo agoNo company with a legal rep is going to be happy with that situation - ever. Who even owns the code the person is working on? Who is responsible when it goes wrong?
- panflute 5mo agoNever happy is a bit of an exaggeration. SYSV UNIX had all of these risks and various legal departments went through them as they do regularly for more typical types of research.
- lazide 5mo agoWhen it was explicit, and part of the relationship, sure. Because those questions aren’t questions.
- ErroneousBosh 5mo agoWhich is why I said you'd sit everyone down and thrash it out.
- pbronez 5mo agoThat’s the “firming up” bit. You have a contract that deems the code “work for hire” even though the money flow is wonky. Legally the guy is like any 1099.