4 ms·

Our default policy was (as is the case at most companies) that code written by our employees is copyright Rackspace. This is true just about universally - look

by VanL 13y ago

Our default policy was (as is the case at most companies) that code written by our employees is copyright Rackspace. This is true just about universally - look on wikipedia about the "work for hire" doctrine. Because employee code was technically the property of Rackspace, we had a policy that they needed to ask for permission before releasing it to the public under an open source license. But when we looked at our actual history, we saw that we were granting 100% of the requests. This new policy grants pre-approval to all Rackers to contribute to open source projects under their own name, holding their own copyright. We even allow contributions that occur on Rackspace time using Rackspace resources, as long as their manager agrees that it is a good use of their at-work time. VanL (I wrote the policy)

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Our default policy was (as is the case at most companies) that code written by our employees is copyright Rackspace. This is true just about universally - look on wikipedia about the "work for hire" doctrine. Such a policy seems impossible to reconcile with the statutory requirements for a work to be a work for hire, which (when based on employment status rather than specific commission of the work in question) is specifically limited to works that are "prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment", 17 USC Sec. 101 (emphasis added).
- VanL 13y ago
  Hi dragonwriter, The scope of employment has historically been interpreted very broadly, usually in terms of any present or possible future business opportunity. You will see how that leads to a broad right of assignment. You may say, that is ridiculous! I can't believe such a thing! Well, I agree that it is ridiculous, but it is still generally true (modulo some exceptions applicable in a couple of states due to specific employment laws). At Rackspace, we believe in doing the right thing. We already were doing the right thing, but only when asked. We changed our policy to instead do the right thing by default.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    I should add that, whatever questions I have about the potential technical overreach (and it certainly isn't atypical, I agree) in the described terms of your original policy, I think that both how you appear to have applied it and, even more, how you are now treating the issue are both positive things in the industry
  - the_ancient 13y ago
    Only in the minds of Corporate lawyers is that true, the few cases that have gone all way to judgment often side with the employee unless the work product is directly related to their job function. Most of these cases also settle out of court long before they get to judgment because the soulless company bankrupts the former employee with bullshit legal costs
    - VanL 13y ago
      This is not true. For example, take a look at DSC Communications Corp. v. Evan Brown, or DDB Tech v. MLB Advanced Media or Medsphere v. Shreeve. In DSC, the court ruled that Alcatel owned the employee's thoughts that had not yet been committed to writing. (See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/08/12/alcatel_owns_us_employees_thoughts/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/08/12/alcatel_owns_us_empl...). In DDB, the court found that Schlumberger (the oilfield services company) owned a baseball simulator written by an employee. (See http://www.finnegan.com/Publications/federalcircuit/FCCDetail.aspx?pub=2358bbf7-ef30-46e3-a7d0-3c5bb0d5fcb2 http://www.finnegan.com/Publications/federalcircuit/FCCDetai...) In Medsphere, the CTO of the company was sued for releasing the source code to their application as open source on Sourceforge. (See http://www.informationweek.com/medsphere-settles-lawsuit-with-former-cto-over-open-source-code/d/d-id/1060683? http://www.informationweek.com/medsphere-settles-lawsuit-wit...) It may be only "corporate lawyers" who agree with the policies, but those lawyers tend to be very persuasive in front of judges.
      - the_ancient 13y ago
        DDB is specifically limited to patents not copyright which is what we are discussing here. DSC Communications Corp. v. Evan Brown is more relevant, and highlights while I will never live in Texas.... But I should have also said that most of these employment contracts are governed by State law, not Federal law so the amount of bullshit the companies are allowed to get away with is highly varies from state to state. Texas is the worse when it comes to employee protections. DSC would have been laughed out of court here. Medsphere v. Shreeve was settled out of court so has no bearing on this discussion.
brynary 13y ago
It sounds like what you're implying is that Rackspace's employment agreements assign all code written by an employee, regardless of when/where/why it was created, is owned by Rackspace. This is not universally true. I have never and would never work under such terms. Only work done on company equipment or assigned or materially related to the business should be owned by the company. To position otherwise is to significantly stifle employees ability to pursue projects outside of work (even if they are generally approved)
- VanL 13y ago
  That is the typical corporate America policy, and yes it does stifle contribution. We decided to be different and do better.
  - sillysaurus2 13y ago
    >> It sounds like what you're implying is that Rackspace's employment agreements assign all code written by an employee, regardless of when/where/why it was created, is owned by Rackspace. This is not universally true. > That is the typical corporate America policy I've worked for several massive companies, and none have insinuated that code written by an employee at home is owned by the company. If that's what you were referring to, then no, it's not typical corporate America policy. It does exist, but it's not typical.
    - jnoller 13y ago
      This has been the default policy (inventions / work on your free time == the companies) at just about every job I've ever had in my career. They slip it into employment agreements as a method to ensure they can claim ownership over any "Intellectual Property and Inventions" you might make. I've known several people (and OSS developers) who have been on the blunt end of this pretty nasty clause. They've been sued, or startups they started on the side sued by their now-ex company. I've done the startup thing to the big company thing and somehow these clauses have always been there. Disclosure: I work with Van @Rackspace - this updated policy is one step on a grand master open source plan :)
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

by VanL 13y ago

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Our default policy was (as is the case at most companies) that code written by our employees is copyright Rackspace. This is true just about universally - look on wikipedia about the "work for hire" doctrine. Such a policy seems impossible to reconcile with the statutory requirements for a work to be a work for hire, which (when based on employment status rather than specific commission of the work in question) is specifically limited to works that are "prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment", 17 USC Sec. 101 (emphasis added).

VanL 13y ago
Hi dragonwriter, The scope of employment has historically been interpreted very broadly, usually in terms of any present or possible future business opportunity. You will see how that leads to a broad right of assignment. You may say, that is ridiculous! I can't believe such a thing! Well, I agree that it is ridiculous, but it is still generally true (modulo some exceptions applicable in a couple of states due to specific employment laws). At Rackspace, we believe in doing the right thing. We already were doing the right thing, but only when asked. We changed our policy to instead do the right thing by default.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  I should add that, whatever questions I have about the potential technical overreach (and it certainly isn't atypical, I agree) in the described terms of your original policy, I think that both how you appear to have applied it and, even more, how you are now treating the issue are both positive things in the industry
- the_ancient 13y ago
  Only in the minds of Corporate lawyers is that true, the few cases that have gone all way to judgment often side with the employee unless the work product is directly related to their job function. Most of these cases also settle out of court long before they get to judgment because the soulless company bankrupts the former employee with bullshit legal costs
  - VanL 13y ago
    This is not true. For example, take a look at DSC Communications Corp. v. Evan Brown, or DDB Tech v. MLB Advanced Media or Medsphere v. Shreeve. In DSC, the court ruled that Alcatel owned the employee's thoughts that had not yet been committed to writing. (See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/08/12/alcatel_owns_us_employees_thoughts/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/08/12/alcatel_owns_us_empl...). In DDB, the court found that Schlumberger (the oilfield services company) owned a baseball simulator written by an employee. (See http://www.finnegan.com/Publications/federalcircuit/FCCDetail.aspx?pub=2358bbf7-ef30-46e3-a7d0-3c5bb0d5fcb2 http://www.finnegan.com/Publications/federalcircuit/FCCDetai...) In Medsphere, the CTO of the company was sued for releasing the source code to their application as open source on Sourceforge. (See http://www.informationweek.com/medsphere-settles-lawsuit-with-former-cto-over-open-source-code/d/d-id/1060683? http://www.informationweek.com/medsphere-settles-lawsuit-wit...) It may be only "corporate lawyers" who agree with the policies, but those lawyers tend to be very persuasive in front of judges.
    - the_ancient 13y ago
      DDB is specifically limited to patents not copyright which is what we are discussing here. DSC Communications Corp. v. Evan Brown is more relevant, and highlights while I will never live in Texas.... But I should have also said that most of these employment contracts are governed by State law, not Federal law so the amount of bullshit the companies are allowed to get away with is highly varies from state to state. Texas is the worse when it comes to employee protections. DSC would have been laughed out of court here. Medsphere v. Shreeve was settled out of court so has no bearing on this discussion.

brynary 13y ago

It sounds like what you're implying is that Rackspace's employment agreements assign all code written by an employee, regardless of when/where/why it was created, is owned by Rackspace. This is not universally true. I have never and would never work under such terms. Only work done on company equipment or assigned or materially related to the business should be owned by the company. To position otherwise is to significantly stifle employees ability to pursue projects outside of work (even if they are generally approved)

VanL 13y ago
That is the typical corporate America policy, and yes it does stifle contribution. We decided to be different and do better.
- sillysaurus2 13y ago
  >> It sounds like what you're implying is that Rackspace's employment agreements assign all code written by an employee, regardless of when/where/why it was created, is owned by Rackspace. This is not universally true. > That is the typical corporate America policy I've worked for several massive companies, and none have insinuated that code written by an employee at home is owned by the company. If that's what you were referring to, then no, it's not typical corporate America policy. It does exist, but it's not typical.
  - jnoller 13y ago
    This has been the default policy (inventions / work on your free time == the companies) at just about every job I've ever had in my career. They slip it into employment agreements as a method to ensure they can claim ownership over any "Intellectual Property and Inventions" you might make. I've known several people (and OSS developers) who have been on the blunt end of this pretty nasty clause. They've been sued, or startups they started on the side sued by their now-ex company. I've done the startup thing to the big company thing and somehow these clauses have always been there. Disclosure: I work with Van @Rackspace - this updated policy is one step on a grand master open source plan :)

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]