7 ms·
I know this is the law of the land but - Any programmer's own code is open to whatever they want to do with it. I want to put my code on pirate bay ? I should
by 1971genocide 11y ago
I know this is the law of the land but -
Any programmer's own code is open to whatever they want to do with it.
I want to put my code on pirate bay ? I should legally be allowed to do so.
The question that needs to asked is how is it allowed for companies to prevent the author of a codebase from using it on their own disgression ?
There is a price to pay for this - we do not allow those poor multinational to profit massively.
Programming in 2015 is socialism at its finest. How many programmers do you know who work on isolated codebases ?
We live on the shoulder's of giants. Allowing companies to force programmers to hide or take ownership from their own code is bad practice, and harms human innovation.
It also allows companies to force modern day serfdom on their knowledge employee.
- rayiner 11y agoIf you don't want someone else to own the fruits of your labor, don't work for someone else. Programming offers you an unparalleled opportunity to do that.
- SeanLuke 11y ago> Any programmer's own code is open to whatever they want to do with it. Here's a hypothetical. Apple hires someone and pays them handsomely to build critical software for the iWatch. After he leaves Apple, is he allowed to take that code to Samsung?
- venomsnake 11y agoCode is worthless, so yeah ... no harm done. Apple genius is in convincing people to buy their stuff.
- mod 11y agoSolutions to problems aren't worthless. A "critical" solution is worth a lot, and presumably Samsung paid the engineer a lot to build it.
- venomsnake 11y agoCode is worthless. The person that wrote it can be priceless.
- mod 11y agoThen what's the point in even bringing it along?
- baldfat 11y agoWho funds the code keeps the code. You fund yourself have fun doing whatever you want with the code. Company funds the code they are the owner of the code since they paid for the code. If your analogy holds you write code for a client on contract. After you give them the code you can't just give/sell the code to the compeditor or put the code on paste bin for everyone to see. You would be unethical and open for a lawsuite.
- tankenmate 11y agoFrom memory transfer of copyright requires a written contract in the US; so be it your employment contract or a freelancers contract it needs to be written down. I have had contracts where I have successfully negotiated having that clause removed. Just because someone pays you to write code doesn't necessarily mean that at the end they own the copyright. Some jurisdictions however have implicit transfer of copyright in work for hire situations so consult a lawyer and make sure it is always written down.
- rosser 11y agoDo you mean to imply that Goldman's employment contract somehow neglected the bog-standard "work for hire" clause that every other employment contract pretty much ever has included?
- tptacek 11y agoNo. In the US, works created by employees in the scope of their employment are considered "for hire" explicitly by statute: 17 USC 101. It's also true, as my sibling commenter points out, that boilerplate contracts have CYA "for hire" provisions in them. This is a bit of a silly digression, right, because if WFH was going to exonerate Aleynikov, his very-expensive lawyers would have deployed it as an argument. But it would be dangerous for readers to rely on an Internet argument that their own employee work contributions might be their own property, so it seems worth correcting this. WFH is very relevant for contractors (who are by definition not employees), but less so for full-time employees like Aleynikov. Incidentally: you don't have to answer questions about US law "from memory". The answer to this question --- which, by the way, is a whole pamphlet the Copyright Office publishes specifically to resolve confusion on this question --- is a Google search away.
- mod 11y ago> Any programmer's own code is open to whatever they want to do with it. Sure, if someone else didn't buy it from them by paying them a wage.
- rosser 11y agoIf your employment contract includes the "work for hire" clause (which nearly all of them do, as a matter of course), and you don't get it waived, then no, it's not your code to do with as you please.
- tptacek 11y agoReminder: your employment contract does not need to say anything about WFH for your code to be considered WFH. Employee code is generally WFH.
- rosser 11y agoNo, they don't have to. They still often do, however. And when they do explicitly include such verbiage, it's easier to get it waived or amended (as I've been able to do at nearly every position I've ever taken). Counsel is far more likely to modify an existing clause than to add a new one, IME.
- walshemj 11y agoBut if he or she is an employee its not their code the Law is quiet clear on that. Ford line workers don't own the cars that come of the line do they.
- pluma 11y agoThey don't own the raw materials. In programming there rarely are raw materials in that sense. The comparison is silly. Under US law commissioned works may "belong" to the commissioner. Under German law, for example, they don't, unless that's explicitly part of the contract. If anything, software is comparable to other commissioned works like art, literature or architecture.
- mhuffman 11y agoI don't have a problem with companies that have a work-for-hire clause, but I do get a little jumpy around ones that have an "anything you do, even at home, still belongs to us" clause.
- geofft 11y ago> Any programmer's own code is open to whatever they want to do with it. Should I be allowed to sell the exclusive rights to all of my code to my employer, in exchange for a salary? Or do you want to deny my ability to make that contract -- that is, deny me the right to full ownership of my code?