from the better-don-your-asbestos-undergarments dept.
An anonymous poster 'The ABKCO Thieves' writes in about new hire paperwork.
I recently started work at a well-known e-commerce business, which is a great opportunity for me. Only after I started did I find out the full inventions, NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement), non-poaching, and work-for-hire agreement is onerous. It treats any work of authorship during my employment as their property, even if done on my own time and equipment. I can't post the agreement because it would identify the company, and potentially me as well.
Earlier this year I began contributing code to a GPL v2 project that has existed for more than a decade. I want to continue to do so, but how can I without risking "contamination" of it thanks to this agreement? Part of my goal in contributing is to have real live code I can point to, so going under the radar defeats that purpose.
Are these sorts of intellectual property agreements common?
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Tuesday September 13 2016, @07:51AM
Shit like this is why I refuse to repair computers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @08:55AM
This is why we need basic income, so we call all ork as dish washers and moon light as super elite coders for freedom! Except dish washing machines took our dish washing jobs. Oh well. Still got the basic income, right?! Uh, wait. Has the New World Economy not happened yet? What year is this?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @01:42PM
Don't worry. There are always job openings for cannon fodder.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DannyB on Tuesday September 13 2016, @01:56PM
To elaborate on your remark:
> There are always job openings for cannon fodder.
There is an underlying reason for that. Making the cannons (and other high tech toys) supports a gigantic infrastructure of hugely profitable corporations in the military industrial complex. It's tentacles reach into congress. It provides jobs in every congressional district. Peace is unthinkable because War is simply too profitable for those sucking the government tax dollar teat. Therefore you can expect a continued state of undeclared war forever into the future. The name of the enemy may change from Al Queda to ISIS to something else. But we have always been at war with Eurasia, or was it Eastasia. And expect video conferencing cameras as a fixed feature in all your future Telescreens, er, I mean Smart TVs. But I digress.
Q. How much did Santa's sled cost?
A. Nothing. It was on the house.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @08:04AM
Quit now and continue writing Free Software. Of course this means you will also have no income, and you will have to live like RMS: stop bathing, eat your own shit, beg on the street, take welfare handouts. That's the life you choose when you contribute to a GPL project.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @08:15AM
That might have been the only option back then, but today there are companies that explicitly develop GPLed code, so developing GPLed code and being employed are not mutually exclusive. The company might still own the copyright on the code you wrote, but as long as the company releases it under the GPL, who cares?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @08:29AM
On a less drastic side, you could always try to stay anonymous with any GPL coding you do. Make sure of course that it has absolutely nothing to do with your day job anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @08:39AM
Yes but anonymity in this case would mean whenever the submitter wants real credit for GPL work, it will involve a nod and a wink to say, that anonymous work was mine, trust me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @09:23AM
Isn't there a term to solve this?
Why not create a pseudonym?
(Score: 4, Informative) by choose another one on Tuesday September 13 2016, @09:14AM
Exactly - work-for-hire clauses are not exactly new. They are also the reason for the following FSF position (my emphasis):
In order to make sure that all of our copyrights can meet the recordkeeping and other requirements of registration, and in order to be able to enforce the GPL most effectively, FSF requires that each author of code incorporated in FSF projects provide a copyright assignment, and, where appropriate, a disclaimer of any work-for-hire ownership claims by the programmer's employer
.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @12:32AM
My company made you sign this type of clause, and it says that they own any code you write, plus you have to notify them of anything on which you are working. The FSF statement about assigning copyright will not apply to work for hire. I thought about this for a while, and decided that if I want to work on anything it must have a GPL V3 license. I will tell the company that they can claim copyright to what I create, but they must comply with the requirement to provide source code, and patent indemnity.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Mykl on Tuesday September 13 2016, @08:09AM
Were these conditions revealed only after you signed the contract? If so, they are about as enforceable as an EULA.
Are they referenced directly in the employment contract itself? Mine has some of those in there, but nothing too big.
My guess is that your employer would be unable to take ownership of a GPL project, since your contribution only amounts to a percentage of the total work (and am I right in guessing that the percentage is small in terms of 'lines of code'?). Probably the worst they could do would be to fire you for 'breach of contract' (again, assuming that all of these clauses were available to you before you signed up).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @01:19PM
There was a short paragraph saying I would have to sign their agreement, but it was not provided beforehand. I even asked for it via text and did not get it, with the recruiter saying non-workplace stuff is unaffected.
My commits are in the tens, where the real devs do that without breaking a sweat.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mhajicek on Tuesday September 13 2016, @02:15PM
IANAL, but I would say that makes it unenforceable. There's a chance you could have to fight them in court though, which would be expensive.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Tuesday September 13 2016, @03:57PM
I walked out of a potential employer's office in a case like that.
"What do you mean the employment agreement I am expected to agree to is confidential?"
That was a food warehouse, not a tech job though.
(Score: 2) by gznork26 on Wednesday September 14 2016, @12:34AM
I had a gig in the 80s at a US defense contractor. I was an employee of a contract house, and after I started, the defense company sent an agreement for me to sign. It had the same stipulation about them owning anything I created. I refused to sign it as it was, and the lawyer visited in person, flying the argument that 'everyone else signed it'. Well, I wouldn't, and they eventually gave up and allowed the provision to be stricken.
Has this been something that people here have seen all along, or does it go into hiding from time to time?
Khipu were Turing complete.
(Score: 2) by Max Hyre on Monday September 19 2016, @11:14PM
(Score: 5, Interesting) by coolgopher on Tuesday September 13 2016, @08:13AM
This seems to be common practice for employers (especially large, lawyer-filled places) to try on. I've read in the past that they don't have much chance to stand up in court, but if you go to court you lose either way.
What I've done in the past when presented with these is simply tell them that those terms are unreasonable and I cannot sign as-is. Crossing out and/or restricting the clauses to only work time & equipment has always been accepted in the end. Stand your ground, and counter with e.g. garden-analogies - "if you re-landscaped your garden over the weekend, would you consider it reasonable that it now belonged to the company?" Even non-technical managers are easily brought to over to your side this way (and it gives them the means to argue upwards as necessary, on your behalf).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @11:29AM
If they present this as electronically sign-able only, then you cannot cross out anything.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @11:45AM
Print it and send them a copy?
Too many people forget that must of these "dictates" are supposed to be agreements between 2 parties. Its quite possible the other party will not want to have you when you do not agree to their terms, but people need to get away from the idea that there is no choice.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday September 13 2016, @12:42PM
Yes, onerous, unconsciable agreements are common. It's like they want to know how scared, desperate, and wimpy you are, and how hard they can swing the whips. Also how much of a noob you are, and whether you even read the agreement or just blindly signed it in naive trust that it couldn't be too bad. If you don't push back at all, you mark yourself as meat they can grind up in their sweatshop. They won't want to have you on any teams that negotiate deals with other companies, they'll worry that you will give away the store.
Also, they are composed of many people, and the rest of the company may well disagree with the crazy unfair expectations their own lawyers try to push on everyone. They hope you will object to the outrageous provisions. Ever heard of any group of engineers actually liking HR? No, it's Catbert vs the serfs.
Should it be like this? It sets an adversarial tone to the employer-employee relationship. Not good. We ought to have acceptable standard agreements for employment contracts, readily available online.
Might be worth writing our politicians about this sort of thing. Especially if you are in one of those Right-to-Work states.
(Score: 2) by gidds on Thursday September 15 2016, @02:16PM
Same here. All my last several jobs have had such a broad clause in the contract, but have amended it for me. (I don't know whether it's a feature of UK law, or whether I've just been lucky, but I've always been sent a paper copy by post, as part of the formal job offer, to read, sign, and return.)
IIRC, I've usually requested that they insert something along the lines of "...on company business or using company equipment...". I've explained it by pointing out that otherwise, they would be taking the copyright of all my holiday snaps, blog posts, music I write, and so on; and I'm lucky that they've always made the change without comment.
I'm slightly surprised that such a broad claim is still standard in contracts. (Maybe there are too many different creative jobs for any standard restriction to apply to them all?)
(Of course, a decent employer would never enforce that copyright — but then a decent employer wouldn't insist on such an overreaching clause in the contract in the first place.)
[sig redacted]
(Score: 5, Funny) by sjames on Tuesday September 13 2016, @08:20AM
Write the most repugnant imaginable political screed, dutifully apply the corporate copyright and leak it :-)
But only after you line up a new job.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @01:51PM
Just in case it only applies to software, put a 10 PRINT " at the start and a " /n 20 GOTO 10 at the end.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday September 13 2016, @08:24AM
My only advice is this:
Quinn: What do we do when we're awake?
Children: Keep both eyes on the sky.
Quinn: What do we do when we sleep?
Children: Keep one eye on the sky.
Quinn: What do we do when they ask us to sign a NDA or Non-compete agreement?
Children: Run hard, dig deep, go for shelter, and never look back.
Quinn: Good. Now off to bed with you!
(Bonus quote from "Reign of Fire": McCready: "Only one thing worse than a dragon... Americans." )
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @09:06AM
Hitting the DVDs last night?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday September 13 2016, @09:35AM
You mean it's not on Netflix? Of course! The bastards don't want you thinking for yourself, or running about with explosive tipped crossbow bolts! But then, neither do I! I just want everyone to realize that as long is there is one male corporation with these policies, they will breed, and only one species is getting out of this alive. Besides, I liked Gerard Butler when he was a quirky character actor with an extremely thick nothern English accent, before he became the right wing wet dream of "300", the Gay Fascist Porn Movie, or the something has fallen, somewhere, most likely due to really bad acting.
But Dragons. What was it in the "Hobbit"? Dragon-sickness? The irresistable urge to own everything you can, for no reason? Like a Donald, for the very first time? Unfortunately, the Donald's hands are too small, and the "for hire" clauses are as well.
I was working, for a while, for a University with such an explicit policy. I discovered a cure for the common cold, a faster-than-light drive, and a solution to the Fermi paradox. Since the University would claim ownership of all these, I have never published. In fact, this is the first time I have ever mentioned these discoveries! But, I cannot tell you about them, because. . . . Yeah, IP for human progress. Mercenaries!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @10:14AM
You mean it's not on Netflix?
Why bother with Netflix?
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=watch+reign+of+fire+2002 [duckduckgo.com]
Right, sorry, you can't just watch streaming video for free by searching for title and year, that never works. Torrents are the only way because torrents! Torrents!
(Score: 2) by bucc5062 on Tuesday September 13 2016, @03:13PM
Free is relative and some of those "free" streaming sights either want too much information or try to talk you into a CC number. I have had some luck with Putlocker, but some of the alternative links for live streaming got real sketchy with me.
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @10:24AM
I discovered a cure for the common cold, a faster-than-light drive, and a solution to the Fermi paradox. Since the University would claim ownership of all these, I have never published.
That's perfectly fine. Humanity doesn't deserve your brilliance. Please take the discoveries to your grave.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @08:34AM
Take the contract clauses that state that "any work you do during the term of your employment belongs to company" and strike it out, replacing it with "any work you do during the term of your employment on company time and/or company equipment belongs to company". Send the modified contract to their HR with a note to draw their attention to your changes, and see what happens.
In my case, the changes were accepted without company comment. I did this with two of the big IT labor companies in the USA, and one was a very software-centric company.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tangaroa on Tuesday September 13 2016, @08:28PM
In my case the company fired me, accused me of trying to steal their IP, called me a physical threat to the safety of other employees, banned employees from having contact with me, and told EDD that I had resigned so I could not draw unemployment compensation. All because I had asked for the removal of an arbitration clause in the new contract for my promotion.
The company was Edgewave. Normally I don't talk bad about past employers, but screw those guys.
(Score: 2) by gidds on Thursday September 15 2016, @02:25PM
Did you modify the contract after starting (and, presumably, after accepting the original contract)? That seems a dangerous approach.
(I've always had the contract amended and agreed before signing it and accepting the job, which should give them ample opportunity to address any problems beforehand.)
[sig redacted]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by gnampff on Tuesday September 13 2016, @08:37AM
"It treats any work of authorship during my employment as their property, even if done on my own time and equipment."
I highly doubt that the second part has any legal teeth if it is actually worded to say that. Maybe you read this wrong and it just means the things you do while you are on the job or do something _very_ closely related to your work are property of your employer? Because that would sound reasonable to me.
I do not think that a company can own what I create in my free time outside of work if it has no relation to my employer.
It would be kind of odd though if you spend 6 hours a day contemplating the optimal implementation for a feature in a proprietary software Foo, spend 2 hours actually implementing it, go home, and then spend another two hours implementing the same thing in open source competitor OpenFoo, which you could not have done if it was not for your prior knowledge developed on your employers time.
So i guess we have two questions:
Is the GPL project very closely related to your work project?
Do you do it on your own time or your employers time?
If you answer "no" and "own time" then I am pretty sure that you are fine.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Tuesday September 13 2016, @01:29PM
One thing to remember is that the companies that like to make these kinds of agreements often don't have a concept of "employee's own time". As in, they believe that if you are on salary, they own your labor 24x7x365, and will act accordingly. One such employer that I've since left decided to give me grief because I wasn't answering my work email promptly at 1:30 AM on a Saturday night.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday September 13 2016, @06:02PM
One such employer that I've since left decided to give me grief because I wasn't answering my work email promptly at 1:30 AM on a Saturday night.
If my employer did that I would likely respond but it wouldn't be a pleasant response and I might be pretty lit by that point depending on what the rest of my Saturday was fill with. Unless I am specifically on call people know to not contact me outside of work unless it is a real emergency, i.e. someone has died or security breach, and on call actually requires paying me to be on call and extra pay once I answer the phone. I however am willing to be on call most of the time and usually will be a couple of times a month. I had a manager who held the belief that you were to be available 24x7x365 and that was the least annoying aspects of him. The one manager in question insisted that he needed a way to contact me while I would be out hunting for 2 weeks in the arrowhead region of MN away from power and cell towers on my vacation. I finally told him that if he really needed to contact me that he should hire a trained tracker and a team of dogs and start where I would be leaving my car as a courtesy I did show him where I would be leaving my car on a map.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @04:42PM
This has teeth, of a sort. IBM does just this; they had right of first refusal for anything when I was there, and I watched them enforce this (termination + lawyer-ese ensued) twice. Can't comment on whether IBM actually had the right to do this, blah blah, just that they did do it. Right or wrong didn't matter to them- Fuck the Man, right?... well, the Man will fuck back a lot of the time and you'd better be prepared for a real fight, whether it happens or not. Don't jump my ass about what I'm saying here, I'm just relating what I watched unfold, and I did leave that shithole (global services) a few months later, in part because of this kind of thing.
The people I knew to whom this happened eventually turned out fine, but they endured about 6 months of bullshit (outrage, emotional ups and downs, uncertainty about new jobs, etc.) before things straightened out. If the company is big 'n rich, with lots of legal staff, right or wrong usually doesn't play into it, they can and will fuck with you if they have stated ownership of intellectual property up front. **You may win if you choose to run the gauntlet, but it is a big, nasty gauntlet that you will run if the company chooses.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by butthurt on Tuesday September 13 2016, @08:50AM
Distasteful contracts with an employer were the subject of another recent discussion. [soylentnews.org]
If you haven't signed the "agreements" then you can, in my nonprofessional opinion, indicate your lack of assent to them by resigning promptly. Less drastically, you may attempt to negotiate the terms under which you'll be working. One blogger offers his own NDA to his clients. [writerunderground.com]
If you've already signed, you can still attempt to negotiate a more livable agreement that will supersede the one the company provided. You also have the option of resigning, but the unfavourable contract terms will apply to the code and client lists you saw while you were with the company. The sooner you leave, the less you will see, making the company's case more difficult. Should you decide to stay, you could tell your manager about the project you've been contributing to, and your intention to continue doing so. Your employer can give permission for you to write for such projects. I haven't been in such a position; if I were, my inclination would be to prepare diffs, print them out, and ask my manager to sign the printouts. Blanket permission (in writing) to contribute to a specific project is something you could ask for; if the project is unrelated to the company's endeavours, such a request isn't a "big ask."
If you've already signed, you might consider getting proper legal advice as to which terms of the contract are enforceable. I've been asked to sign things which weren't enforceable in the jurisdiction I was in.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by choose another one on Tuesday September 13 2016, @10:12AM
You can always do as the FSF does (and has done for decades - this is not a new problem) and contribute with a copyright assignment or a disclaimer or copyright interest, from your employer.
If it's an FSF project you would already be doing this - https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html [gnu.org]
If you don't want to do the above because you are worried about your employer's reaction to it, then that is a sign you should maybe stop contributing. Or find another job.
(Score: 4, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 13 2016, @10:32AM
You do know contracts aren't set in stone, yes? My first bit of consulting work carried all that jazz except the non-poaching (which is often thrown out by the courts btw). I went to management and got an amendment tacked on to my contract saying code that I wrote on my time with no resemblance or relation to the code I wrote for them was owned by me. All it took was letting them know in a polite and respectful manner that I needed such an amendment in order to keep working for them and why.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by LaminatorX on Tuesday September 13 2016, @01:14PM
Worded that broadly, you'll need to get a license from the Legal department to get your own family photos printed, perform a song you wrote, send a letter-to-the-editor... hell they's own this SN story submission.
Negotiate the objectionable section to something reasonable that protects you both. If they won't budge, smile and play good-worker while looking for another job.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday September 13 2016, @02:24PM
Make a sandwich? The company owns it!
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @09:37AM
Make the bed?
Company now owns that too!
But what happens when I make a car payment??
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday September 13 2016, @01:36PM
If they want to have the right to the product of your labour 24 hours a day, then they have to be prepared to pay for your labour 24 hours a day.
What you do in your own time is not something to which they should have a claim.
As someone else has suggested, modify the terms of the agreement to state that you expect to be paid for 24 hours a day, or that they only have claim to your work for the period which they are paying you.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by MrGuy on Tuesday September 13 2016, @02:08PM
There's a reason why companies have such clauses. You might not agree with the reason, but the knee-jerk reaction here of "ZOMG evil quit immediately" is unhelpful.
The reason for such clauses is that your company (like most software companies) is probably writing software to sell to someone, either directly or as part of a product. As such, they need to own the code. Consider the chaos if an employee could claim "yeah, I wrote that code at 5:30, but I clocked out at 5, so it's mine." Or if you wrote an algorithm to solve a problem on your blog, and later used it at work, then claimed copyright.
Could they solve the problem with a less heavy handed approach? Possibly. But lawyers are conservative and prefer broad covers to narrow ones.
The point is to understand that the reason for such a clause is to protect the company. Not to screw you. And that, as long as they're protected, most companies are fine with you pursuing your interests. They might even encourage it.
Here's how it works at my company. If I'm planning to work on an open source project, or if I want to write a blog, I just tell them. Then we write a letter where we agree that activity is fine. Then I don't worry about it again.
If you work for a reasonable company, having a conversation will save a lot of heartache and bad feelings on both sides. If you work for one of those "other" companies that actually wants to forbid any outside work, then yeah - quit.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday September 13 2016, @06:15PM
The reason for such clauses is that your company (like most software companies) is probably writing software to sell to someone, either directly or as part of a product. As such, they need to own the code. Consider the chaos if an employee could claim "yeah, I wrote that code at 5:30, but I clocked out at 5, so it's mine." Or if you wrote an algorithm to solve a problem on your blog, and later used it at work, then claimed copyright.
Could they solve the problem with a less heavy handed approach? Possibly. But lawyers are conservative and prefer broad covers to narrow ones.
The first statement is spot on in my experience, but I hear rumors of others not being so lucky. The second one I would say yes to and I work at a company that seems to have figured out a better solution. My employer has had problems with employees moonlighting at a competitor doing their exact same job but as contractors. So we ended up with a policy that basically states that if you want to create IP on your own time you need to get approval from your manager and their manager to do so. If you get approval you own what you create if not then the company could claim they own it. I have sought approval for a few things and never had them denied as they weren't related to what I do for my job. Interestingly enough because of one of the side things my manager found out that I knew a fair amount about GIS and cartography and when one of our customers wanted to add some related functionality I basically got to dive in and design that solution for them. I ended up getting a pretty nice raise out of the project as well.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Tuesday September 13 2016, @02:39PM
Where do you live? If you are in California, most of these clauses are not enforceable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @03:19PM
I ask if one is salary or hourly because if you're hourly they have absolutely no claim on anything you're doing outside of the hours they are paying you for. (They may be able to fire you for moonlighting, or maybe not.) But if they haven't paid for it, it is not theirs.
Salaried positions are different in this theory, as they give you theoreticaly flexibility as to when you're accomplishing your goals and when you're working for them. Doesn't mean that those clauses are still enforceable, just not under that theory.
Any poaching / NDA laws are both subject to state as well as federal laws, and also court challenges. But the company you work for probably has the bigger pockets, unless you're poached by a company that wants you so badly that they'll fight for you.
Without knowing the specifics, there is only so far that you'll get in good advice. (Not to mention you really should be taking the matter up with a labor lawyer, if you're really serious about knowing where you stand in regards to the law in your jurisdiction.)
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Tuesday September 13 2016, @05:06PM
Point out to them something like this:
I too have intellectual property and valuable trade secrets. Take the nondisclosure and intellectual property agreement, and reverse the roles. If you would not be willing to sign such an agreement with the roles reversed, you can presume I will not sign it as is.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Tuesday September 13 2016, @05:10PM
These kinds of clauses are standard and mostly unenforceable, depending on the state you live in. In California for example, any work you do strictly on your time, without company resources, and not relating to the employer's work cannot be claimed by your employer. Of course, that last clause is a little iffy if you work for a large company like Google, but there hasn't been any strong legal precedents.
Read this explanation for why this clause exists: http://www.brightjourney.com/q/working-company-intellectual-property-rights-stuff-spare-time [brightjourney.com]
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 1) by mmlj4 on Wednesday September 14 2016, @01:04AM
Language that states they own what you do on your own time is unenforceable. To compound matters, do they also claim to own, by extension, the IP of the other developers of the open source project you contribute to? Again, it's bogus.
Need a Linux consultant [joeykelly.net] in New Orleans?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @04:36AM
Be more like me. I have no imagination and do not want to work on anything anymore. They only thing that sort of motivates me is other peoples problems. Even then I dont really care. I just go home and hang with my family and play video games. Anything else it is none of their business and they will never know it existed. In 5 years I probably will have forgot I wrote it in the first place.
In my 25 years of doing this I have wrote hundred of thousands of lines of code. None of it is in use anywhere anymore, not one line. It does not matter. Code is ephemeral. Very little of it lasts a long time. It only takes one hot shot to come along and decide 'it doesnt feel right' and its blown away.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @06:05AM
And when I say new here, I mean, on this planet..
Are these sorts of intellectual property agreements common?
Too damn common, and have been for decades.
The first one I saw was back in the 80's, my sister started working for a rather large TLA company and showed me her contract, it laid claim to all her output both technical and artistic for the duration of her employment. It was the artistic part which worried her, she painted quite a bit back then, sold quite a few and did commission work, the contact was worded in such a manner that it more or less implied they owned her 'body and soul' for the duration. so much so, I'm surprised they didn't get her to sign the thing in blood.
My last full-time IT job had a more 'liberal' IP agreement inasmuch as I was employed to code, it was restricted to them claiming ownership of all and any code I produced whilst contracted, oh, and was forbidden to do work in any form on any other computer systems other than the company's.. apart from that, any other works were my own.
FWIW, my current contract (in a non-IT role and industry) is quite interesting, I design things for my employer, they manufacture and sell these items, yet they make no legal claim, explicit or otherwise, in my contract to any of my work as theirs. As I like to think I'm not a shithead, I treat the designs I do for them as 'work for hire', and as they've been pretty decent to work for I've gotten them out of a hole on a couple of occasions by giving them gratis designs and code I'd done for a couple of my own 'pet projects'.