Using hobby source code in your job ?

[Skybuck Flying]

Ok,

Suppose you have programmed a lot of "re-useable" source code.

Suppose you're considering taking a programming job in the same language as
your hobby programming language.

The question rises:

1. Do you use your hobby source code in your job ?

This could create problems ?!?

2. For example without thinking about it you might loose the rights to your
hobby source code.

So what would you do ?

I myself see a number of possiblities:

1. Don't even take a job in the same programming language as your hobby.

2. Don't even use your hobby source code.

3. In case you do use it, give the company a license to use your compiled
source, they probably won't like that.

4. Give the company a license to use your source code.

5. "Open Source" your code... like gnu license.

6. Make your source code freeware.

Again I ask... which alternative would you use... is there another
alternative ?

In short what would you do ?

( I also tried to ask the Slashdot crowd this same question by submitting a
"story" to "AskSlashdot" but it's been pending for two days and I no longer
like to wait ;) Besides from that... most of the time there are a lot of
funny (non-serious) or drifting threads/replies from the slashdot crowd...
which make it hard to follow... not to mention the slashdot interface <- not
being able to follow a thread well... so maybe it's for the best to ask it
in newsgroup(s) anyway... <- a bit more serious replies and usually some
drifting too :) and more easy to follows threads ;) at least for me ;) )

( I know it's not a question directly related to delphi, c,c++, java, pascal
or whatever language but I would still like to know what you experienced
programmers think about this ;) )

( Languages mentioned in newsgroup order ;) )

Bye,
Skybuck.

[Andrew Koenig]

Post by Skybuck Flying
1. Do you use your hobby source code in your job ?
This could create problems ?!?

Sure could. It could even if you don't use it. Many employers will insist
on rights to *any* work you do that is even vaguely related to the scope of
your employment, even if they did not specifically request it.

Post by Skybuck Flying
1. Don't even take a job in the same programming language as your hobby.

I can't see why the language would matter.

Post by Skybuck Flying
2. Don't even use your hobby source code.

That might help, or it might not.

Post by Skybuck Flying
3. In case you do use it, give the company a license to use your compiled
source, they probably won't like that.

If you're not willing to ask, you must be assuming that you won't like the
answer.

Post by Skybuck Flying
4. Give the company a license to use your source code.
5. "Open Source" your code... like gnu license.
6. Make your source code freeware.
Again I ask... which alternative would you use... is there another
alternative ?

Explain the situation to your prospective employer and ask for a written
agreement that you find mutually acceptable. If you can't reach an
agreement, either stop programming as a hobby or work elsewhere.

[Jim P]

Post by Andrew Koenig

Post by Skybuck Flying
1. Do you use your hobby source code in your job ?
This could create problems ?!?

Sure could. It could even if you don't use it. Many employers will insist
on rights to *any* work you do that is even vaguely related to the scope of
your employment, even if they did not specifically request it.

Post by Skybuck Flying
1. Don't even take a job in the same programming language as your hobby.

I can't see why the language would matter.

Post by Skybuck Flying
2. Don't even use your hobby source code.

That might help, or it might not.

Post by Skybuck Flying
3. In case you do use it, give the company a license to use your compiled
source, they probably won't like that.

If you're not willing to ask, you must be assuming that you won't like the
answer.

Post by Skybuck Flying
4. Give the company a license to use your source code.
5. "Open Source" your code... like gnu license.
6. Make your source code freeware.
Again I ask... which alternative would you use... is there another
alternative ?

Explain the situation to your prospective employer and ask for a written
agreement that you find mutually acceptable. If you can't reach an
agreement, either stop programming as a hobby or work elsewhere.

Andrew - - better worded that I did.

I took a major development contract with the company and I have a
realtime monitor that I have developed and evolved over the years - for
enbedded Microprocessor designs. (one chip designs) and would be using
that as the foundation for the designs - -they were being really picky
in the contract about ownerships and making sure they owned it.
Attorneys going crazy. Attorney's making sure that no loop holes are
present. So I decided to add a clause to the contract where they had
execptions - - as they wanted to be sure that one the project was
complete that no royality issues would show up that needed to be handled
- on purchased software or anything. I wanted to be sure to keep the
rights to this monitor and by close reading it could have been assumed
to be owned by them.

So - I mentioned it and put in the contract that they have complete
rights to the realtime monitor - - with only one restriction - they can
not sell or distribute the realtime monitor except as part of their
product. - - -

My attorney and I put in a whole series of standard attorney langauge -
and their attorney simply took that and expanded it by over 50% in terms
of the words to say, They have a world wide, license to use this
realtime monitor as part of their product code. We had license free,
non-revokeable, and a whole series of other comments and statements - -
and their attorney - just had to add a few more. It would have been very
hard to get past our statements in court. It was clear what was said.
But their attorney - - - ugh. When we got all of the details worked out
- and ready to sign the contract. (2 months later) Their attorney then
- re-read the contract to be sure that it was right and came back with a
list of 35 changes that had to be made. Some were as simply as breaking
a sentence in two. But when he started changing the wording in clauses
that were never changed from when the contract was presented to us. That
is when my attorney and I both got upset. It cost me about $4000 to get
the contract signed. I heard later that their attorney charged them
$24000 area. That is right and they looked at the bill and make him
reduce it by 50%. He was simply padding his bill with lots of little
things in the contract. None that made any differnce and in effect
causing an other go around on the contract by changing wording that was
never changed from when he first wrote the first draft of the contract.

But if you think that 100% of what you have done before is clearly
yours. Forget it. If you have major software that relates to what they
need or are doing. Make it clear up front. If it is just little things.
Forget it.

and Skybuck, you have a tendancy to make major issues out of little
things. - -- oh Delphi is worthless because it does not work the way
that you like it. But do not see all of the benefits and enhancements
that are present and make this a great tool. A very good tool.

I figured that giving them the rights to the code and keeping it for
myself and any enhancements made to it and there were enhancements was
worth getting a $400k contract. and this was only the starting point for
each set of code. and makes a great debugging tool. Never seen anything
like it before or since.

Jim P.

[Grant Wagner]

Post by Andrew Koenig

Post by Skybuck Flying
1. Do you use your hobby source code in your job ?
This could create problems ?!?

Sure could. It could even if you don't use it. Many employers will insist
on rights to *any* work you do that is even vaguely related to the scope of
your employment, even if they did not specifically request it.

This is a very good point.

Suppose you come up with an algorithm for display of "discussion" items and
responses to those "discussion" items (newsgroup-like or blog-like behavior)
for your company. Then you quit your job and write and distribute a freeware
blog package. Someone on your previous development team notices you used the
same algorithm in your freeware blog package as you used on the corporate
project several years/months/days earlier. The company could claim ownership of
your blog package because they own the intellectual property.

Whether it's true that they are legally entitled to your freeware blog package
is a moot point. They probably have deeper pockets than you and could tie you
up in legal proceedings until you go bankrupt. Would you fight that hard for
something you wrote in your spare time?

Post by Andrew Koenig

Post by Skybuck Flying
Again I ask... which alternative would you use... is there another
alternative ?

Explain the situation to your prospective employer and ask for a written
agreement that you find mutually acceptable. If you can't reach an
agreement, either stop programming as a hobby or work elsewhere.

The bottom line is that if you write code for a living, you have to deal with
the idea that at any time, for any reason, a past, present or future employer
(or anyone else for that matter) can claim ownership of your idea. When that
happens (if it ever does) you'll have to determine then whether it's worth
fighting for.

--
Grant Wagner <***@agricoreunited.com>

[Albert van der Horst]

Post by Grant Wagner
The bottom line is that if you write code for a living, you have to deal with
the idea that at any time, for any reason, a past, present or future employer
(or anyone else for that matter) can claim ownership of your idea. When that
happens (if it ever does) you'll have to determine then whether it's worth
fighting for.

In case the idea is there before you are employed, you must pre-empt
by using a GPL copyright, and publishing.

Then if you are using the same idea at an employers you point out
that re-implementing doesn't violate copyright.
They should be happy, you being the sensible person that you are.
They will ask you to give them extra rights in writing, but you
should simply refuse to do so.
There will be a lot of blather and booh's, but they will have to
- use the original and accept their code becomes GPL-ed
- believe you are sensible and will never try to
sue them, than re-implement
or
- give up

This is of course because published GPL code is effectively owned
and defended by the public, which includes IBM, a company with
deep pockets and good lawyers.
Groetjes Albert

[Flash Gordon]

On 08 Dec 2004 22:54:20 GMT

Post by Albert van der Horst

Post by Grant Wagner
The bottom line is that if you write code for a living, you have to
deal with the idea that at any time, for any reason, a past, present
or future employer(or anyone else for that matter) can claim
ownership of your idea. When that happens (if it ever does) you'll
have to determine then whether it's worth fighting for.

In case the idea is there before you are employed, you must pre-empt
by using a GPL copyright, and publishing.
Then if you are using the same idea at an employers you point out
that re-implementing doesn't violate copyright.
They should be happy, you being the sensible person that you are.
They will ask you to give them extra rights in writing, but you
should simply refuse to do so.

A lot of companies will simply refuse to use code that means they have
to GPL their products. They would probably not continue to employ
someone who gave that as the only option.

Post by Albert van der Horst
There will be a lot of blather and booh's, but they will have to
- use the original and accept their code becomes GPL-ed
- believe you are sensible and will never try to
sue them, than re-implement
or
- give up
This is of course because published GPL code is effectively owned
and defended by the public, which includes IBM, a company with
deep pockets and good lawyers.

This is incorrect. The public does *not* own GPL code, the copyright
owners do. The copyright owners are therefor free to release identical
code under another licence or sell it if they wish. Look at Cygwin and
QT for two examples of code available both under GPL and commercial
licenses, there are others.

[Jim P]

Enough of this IP argument.

and about prior work and Home / Hobby work.

The reason that I am hired is that I have a long history of prior skills
and knowledge. This is not just related to Software and programming.

But my skills in hardware design, In microprocessor design, Analog
designs. and over all system designs.

These skills, I carry with me to any new job. I respect the market place
of the prior work and technology directly related to that project. But
because I learn how to use the Motorola (FreeScale) MC68HC908AZ60 micro
does not mean that I can not use that micro in an other project.

or claim prior knowledge and demand IP protection and rights. It is
these skills that get me hired for the next project.

It is the skills that I have, the tools that I have learned and
developed that get me the job over a kid just out of school with an
empty toolbox of tricks - - - - and then demand that I get a license to
allow them to use these tricks and tools of the trade. That is right-
they are simply the tools of the trade. Would you hire a person to do
your floors and he has never done a floor before. - - my lady friend
hired a person to do her deck. It turns out it was his second deck that
he ever did. - - oh boy called learning on the job. - -

If all you have done is build a set of tools and they are nothing more
than the tools of the trade. and expect them to pay for that. Forget
it. You will come off wrong. - - -

They also expect you to know the language or able to pick it up fast.
That is called tools of the trade.

And note that the tools or concepts or tricks carry from one language to
an other. Just as my real time monitor for the 65C02 micro was done in
Assembly and then redone in C for the 80C552 micro and now the 68HC908
series in C. and is going thou an other evolution in terms of
performance and features. and I can demand a license and royality for
this. - - - not really it is simply one of the tools of the trade.

Just as the guy that did her deck, He had the nail guns and saws. Just
did not know how to use them or design the deck. (30% extra wood in the
deck) and many other aspects were wrong. - - even blocking the faucet so
that it is hard to use.

We are expected to have experience and thus prior work and skills. and
code ideas and concepts.

-------------------

so what is done on the side or as a hobby or prior has to be more than
just tools of the trade. It has to be something that was clearly done
prior to work at the company and this means mentioned up front. Any home
or side or hobby work must clearly be not related to your job or company
market place. Or it is the companies, Unless you make an arrangement to
do a task on the side for them. and they know it is going on and it is
on your time. Again the prior arrangement. TO do it and then try to
sell it to the company is like trying to hold them up.

I have a renter in my house that tried this. Got hired by a company full
time and then designed something for them to sell and demanded
royalities on it. The company balked - - as they would - - his
employment was to design things for them to sell. Then he would go to
work and in his anger just sit and do nothing all day. After a while
they let him go. So he sued them and that just made them mad at him.
The product was small % of their total sales so they dropped it and
refused to pay him, His attorney was demanding Millions - - He was
willing to accept less when they balked. He fired the attorney and then
tried to talk to them about it and lower number. They refused to deal
with him any more. It cost him a lot more than it cost them. and they
knew that.

But he was hired to design for them. Just like if I was an engine
designer for General Motors. Am I to expect to get a royality from my
work. A raise if I do a good job, A bonus if I do a real good job or
something special or other reward but not for simply doing my job. This
requires a person to be thinking about work more than simply being a 8
to 5 employee. And turns off work at the door.

I say this as a person that has patents in my name and more applied for
at this point in time. And guess what - the company made sure that they
get the rights to the patents. So as I can not hold them hostage and
demand high royalites or other compensation after they spend millions
bringing the product into production. - - - that is called putting a gun
to their head. and of course they will not like that and it will leave a
level of resentment.

But they will reward a person for this. Raises. They do not want this
guy to leave. If he can do this - - why let him leave and work for
someone else and maybe a company that competes against them. In my case
caused lots of more consulting work for the companies that I worked for.

Will a person that simply looks as his job as 8 to 5 and can't wait to
go home at night and turns of work at the door going to come up with the
type of ideas and thoughts that will drive a company forward. I do not
think so. His mind is else where.

This is life, face it, it is this way for a reason and not just because
companies want it that way. But because it works.

Jim P.

Post by Flash Gordon
On 08 Dec 2004 22:54:20 GMT

Post by Albert van der Horst

Post by Grant Wagner
The bottom line is that if you write code for a living, you have to
deal with the idea that at any time, for any reason, a past, present
or future employer(or anyone else for that matter) can claim
ownership of your idea. When that happens (if it ever does) you'll
have to determine then whether it's worth fighting for.

In case the idea is there before you are employed, you must pre-empt
by using a GPL copyright, and publishing.
Then if you are using the same idea at an employers you point out
that re-implementing doesn't violate copyright.
They should be happy, you being the sensible person that you are.
They will ask you to give them extra rights in writing, but you
should simply refuse to do so.

A lot of companies will simply refuse to use code that means they have
to GPL their products. They would probably not continue to employ
someone who gave that as the only option.

Post by Albert van der Horst
There will be a lot of blather and booh's, but they will have to
- use the original and accept their code becomes GPL-ed
- believe you are sensible and will never try to
sue them, than re-implement
or
- give up
This is of course because published GPL code is effectively owned
and defended by the public, which includes IBM, a company with
deep pockets and good lawyers.

This is incorrect. The public does *not* own GPL code, the copyright
owners do. The copyright owners are therefor free to release identical
code under another licence or sell it if they wish. Look at Cygwin and
QT for two examples of code available both under GPL and commercial
licenses, there are others.

[Ben Pfaff]

Post by Jim P
Enough of this IP argument.
and about prior work and Home / Hobby work.

Yes, I agree.

Do you have a question about Borland Delphi, C, C++, Java, and
Pascal?

[Jim P]

Post by Ben Pfaff

Post by Jim P
Enough of this IP argument.
and about prior work and Home / Hobby work.

Yes, I agree.
Do you have a question about Borland Delphi, C, C++, Java, and
Pascal?

Not at the momment - was just responding to others comments. Which was
started by Skybuck

Jim P.

[Albert van der Horst]

Post by Flash Gordon

Post by Albert van der Horst
This is of course because published GPL code is effectively owned
and defended by the public, which includes IBM, a company with
deep pockets and good lawyers.

This is incorrect. The public does *not* own GPL code, the copyright
owners do. The copyright owners are therefor free to release identical
code under another licence or sell it if they wish. Look at Cygwin and
QT for two examples of code available both under GPL and commercial
licenses, there are others.

You turn my carefully worded phrases upside down.
By GPL-ing my code, I do the best I can to give the public
full control of my code. That is what I mean by "effectively".
And indeed the public holds a stake at my code, probably more than
I do.

What you say about selling by the autor is only very partially true.
If I am the only contributor to code, I can rerelease under a different
copyright. I can do nothing if I'm a significant contributor,
but others are also. This is, of course, the case with practically
all significant sources. So I restate: "the public effectively
owns the GPL-code." And I would add: "the companies with the best
lawyers effectively own public domain code.".

Post by Flash Gordon
--
Flash Gordon

Groetjes Albert.

[Andrew Koenig]

Post by Albert van der Horst
You turn my carefully worded phrases upside down.
By GPL-ing my code, I do the best I can to give the public
full control of my code. That is what I mean by "effectively".
And indeed the public holds a stake at my code, probably more than
I do.

This is incorrect. By GPL-ing your code, you give the public *no* control
over it. If you wanted to give the public control over it, you would place
it in the public domain.

If you GPL code, you are (still) the only one who controls it, because you
and you alone have the option of making the code available under different
terms.

[Keith Thompson]

Albert van der Horst <***@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> writes:
[...]

Post by Albert van der Horst
You turn my carefully worded phrases upside down.
By GPL-ing my code, I do the best I can to give the public
full control of my code. That is what I mean by "effectively".
And indeed the public holds a stake at my code, probably more than
I do.

[...]

I believe this is incorrect. It's also off-topic in all five of the
newsgroups to which it is being posted.

The GPL can be discussed in gnu.misc.discuss. Software IP issues can
be discussed in misc.legal.computing.

Did you have a question about Borland Delphi, C, C++, Java, or Pascal?

[Keith Thompson]

Albert van der Horst <***@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> writes:
[...]

Post by Albert van der Horst
This is of course because published GPL code is effectively owned
and defended by the public, which includes IBM, a company with
deep pockets and good lawyers.

If you insist on posting legal advice to Usenet, please either post
*correct* legal advice, or post it to a newsgroup where it's topical.

[Chris Hills]

Post by Keith Thompson
[...]

Post by Albert van der Horst
This is of course because published GPL code is effectively owned
and defended by the public, which includes IBM, a company with
deep pockets and good lawyers.

If you insist on posting legal advice to Usenet, please either post
*correct* legal advice, or post it to a newsgroup where it's topical.

And state which jusistiction (you think) you are talking about. Not all
in the NG are in the UK some might be looking at forigen laws which do
not apply here :-)


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/ ***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Phillip Lord]

Post by Grant Wagner
The bottom line is that if you write code for a living, you have
to deal with the idea that at any time, for any reason, a past,
present or future employer (or anyone else for that matter) can
claim ownership of your idea. When that happens (if it ever does)
you'll have to determine then whether it's worth fighting for.

Albert> In case the idea is there before you are employed, you must
Albert> pre-empt by using a GPL copyright, and publishing.


GPL is not copyright. It's a license. You can only put GPL on
something that you own the copyright off. It you write some code, but
someone else owns the copyright, even if you stick a GPL on it, they
can take it off again. More over, they could sue you for releasing
their software, even it your wrote it, without their permission.

If you want to release code as GPL and you work for someone else, then
you need to get an employer disclaimer of rights, which say "We don't
own this code, we are happy for it be released as GPL".

Albert> This is of course because published GPL code is effectively
Albert> owned and defended by the public, which includes IBM, a
Albert> company with deep pockets and good lawyers.

They might defend the license. They are not going to defend your usage
of it.

Phil

[Christian Bau]

Post by Albert van der Horst

Post by Grant Wagner
The bottom line is that if you write code for a living, you have to deal with
the idea that at any time, for any reason, a past, present or future employer
(or anyone else for that matter) can claim ownership of your idea. When that
happens (if it ever does) you'll have to determine then whether it's worth
fighting for.

In case the idea is there before you are employed, you must pre-empt
by using a GPL copyright, and publishing.
Then if you are using the same idea at an employers you point out
that re-implementing doesn't violate copyright.
They should be happy, you being the sensible person that you are.
They will ask you to give them extra rights in writing, but you
should simply refuse to do so.
There will be a lot of blather and booh's, but they will have to
- use the original and accept their code becomes GPL-ed
- believe you are sensible and will never try to
sue them, than re-implement
or
- give up

This is nonsense.

A company is not allowed to use someone elses copyrighted code without
the permission of the copyright holder.

In the case that the copyright holder licenses the code under the GPL,
the copyright holder is absolutely free to license the same code under
any other license. In the situation that you describe, the copyright
holder gives the company permission to use the code - with no strings
attached. If there is a contract that allows the company to use your
code, then they have your permission to use it, and therefore it doesn't
make the slightest difference whether the code is licensed under GPL or
not.

However, if you start with software licensed under GPL, and modify it,
then you have no right to allow others the use of the derived work under
any different terms, so it will be impossible for the company to lay
their grubby hands on it. The only exception would be if _all_ copyright
holders are employed by the same company and have signed the same kind
of contract.

[JeffS]

It seems to me that most programmers, especially contractors who go
from job to job, reuse code they either did as a hobby or wrote for
some other employer. It's just that they don't copy and paste it line
by line, they modify it for the most current use, and obfuscate it as
well. It also seems that this practice would have to be a complete
necessity in order to be productive, or at least get better over time.
Imagine if every coder completely re-invented the wheel from scratch
with every job opportunity. That would be ridiculous. Plus, an
employer, just because they paid you to write code, has no monopoly
over your knowledge, unless it's a company "trade secret". However,
in programming, in spite of all the ridiculous patents going on out
there, there are no real "trade secrets", in terms of algorithms or
coding techniques.

I'm sure that on a pure legal basis I'm probably at least partially
wrong. However, I'm also quite sure that code reuse is extremely
common amongst coders. They just don't tell anyone about what code
they are reusing, and I'm sure that employers are not probing their
coders for what code they are reusing. It's kind of a "don't ask,
don't tell" situation, and any potential IP or patent infringement is
looked upon like "J" walking is looked upon. I am utterly convinced
that this is the way it is, based on personal experience, people I
know, and the fact that the alternative would mean that programmers
could only take one job their entire lives, and software innovation
would completely stagnate. To put another way - to have intellectual
capital kept under IP/patent wraps would have meant that human beings
would still be in caves.

[Bob Hairgrove]

Post by JeffS
It seems to me that most programmers, especially contractors who go
from job to job, reuse code they either did as a hobby or wrote for
some other employer. It's just that they don't copy and paste it line
by line, they modify it for the most current use, and obfuscate it as
well.

[big snip]

IANAL, but some things simply aren't patentable or subject to
copyright. Who has the patent on white flour? Salt? Butter? Put them
together in the right proportions, throw in a little yeast and some
"secret ingredient", then maybe you come up with a recipe for bread
which *is* patentable.

Everybody uses and reuses things like the quick sort algorithm. If you
write your own implementation of it, nobody can enforce ownership of
the IP because it's merely a wheel, and one that has been used and
reused many times over again. Nobody ever invented the wheel, it's
just always been there ... the same thing probably applies to things
like smart pointers, except that no one has come up with one single
version that pleases all the people all the time.

My point is that to enforce patents or copyright, it is necessary to
prove that the design of a product, and not necessarily the
ingredients which go into the making, are original and innovative in
nature. An entire operating system can be patentable and still be
written with code which isn't.

--
Bob Hairgrove
***@Home.com

[Keith Thompson]

[snip]

Post by Bob Hairgrove
[big snip]
IANAL

[bigger snip]

If you're not a laywer, why are you giving legal advice?

In particular, why are you giving legal advice in multiple newsgroups,
when it's off-topic in *all* of them?

[Richard Bos]

Post by Bob Hairgrove

Post by JeffS
It seems to me that most programmers, especially contractors who go
from job to job, reuse code they either did as a hobby or wrote for
some other employer. It's just that they don't copy and paste it line
by line, they modify it for the most current use, and obfuscate it as
well.

[big snip]
IANAL, but some things simply aren't patentable or subject to
copyright. Who has the patent on white flour?

McDonalds, surely? "Method of refining grain for use in buns surrounding
minced offal".
Oh, wait, no, that's not a _software_ patent. The USA's patent law
"Completely transparent ploy for approval by utter morons" clause
doesn't apply. Poor McDonalds... not even up to Microsoft standards.

Post by Bob Hairgrove
My point is that to enforce patents or copyright, it is necessary to
prove that the design of a product,

Was. _Was_ necessary. Hasn't been for years, in our industry. Remember
the one-click patent? The copyright on the smiley?

Richard

[Bruce Lewis]

(Crossposted to misc.int-property; followups set).

Post by Bob Hairgrove
IANAL, but some things simply aren't patentable or subject to
copyright.

Patent, trademark and copyright are different in important ways. It's
generally a good idea to talk about only one at a time.

Post by Bob Hairgrove
Who has the patent on white flour? Salt? Butter? Put them
together in the right proportions, throw in a little yeast and some
"secret ingredient", then maybe you come up with a recipe for bread
which *is* patentable.

You have to be careful making this point. Even though it makes perfect
sense, people can wildly misinterpret it. Yes, non-patentable parts can
be combined to make a patentable whole. However, the way these parts
are combined needs to be novel and nonobvious.

For example, say you baked bread and glazed a poem onto the top. The
main bread ingredients, the glaze, and the way the glaze goes on to the
bread are not novel. The poem is not statutory (i.e. not material that
is subject to patent; you copyright poems). Is the bread as a whole
patentable? What does the law say?

Depends what you mean by "law". If you take it as what is written, the
bread is not patentable. The Supreme Court in Diamond v. Diehr wrote
that you couldn't make non-patentable subject matter (in this case a
poem) patentable just by adding non-novel elements to it.

However, if you take "law" as what might happen to you in court, the
bread is patentable. The USPTO and some lower court have taken
"statutory and novel as a whole" to mean "statutory as a whole and novel
in any part". That's why we have software patents.

[Tony Morris]

Post by Andrew Koenig

Post by Skybuck Flying
1. Do you use your hobby source code in your job ?
This could create problems ?!?

Sure could. It could even if you don't use it. Many employers will insist
on rights to *any* work you do that is even vaguely related to the scope of
your employment, even if they did not specifically request it.

Post by Skybuck Flying
1. Don't even take a job in the same programming language as your hobby.

I can't see why the language would matter.

Post by Skybuck Flying
2. Don't even use your hobby source code.

That might help, or it might not.

Post by Skybuck Flying
3. In case you do use it, give the company a license to use your compiled
source, they probably won't like that.

If you're not willing to ask, you must be assuming that you won't like the
answer.

Post by Skybuck Flying
4. Give the company a license to use your source code.
5. "Open Source" your code... like gnu license.
6. Make your source code freeware.
Again I ask... which alternative would you use... is there another
alternative ?

Explain the situation to your prospective employer and ask for a written
agreement that you find mutually acceptable. If you can't reach an
agreement, either stop programming as a hobby or work elsewhere.

Most companies have procedures in place to declare any of your previous work
as your own.
IBM certainly does, since I have used it.
Contamination is a very big, messy issue - I won't even begin to start
describing it.
Suffice to say that you won't be legitimately using your own work within a
company without some formal process in place.

[Jim P]

Post by Skybuck Flying
Ok,
Suppose you have programmed a lot of "re-useable" source code.
Suppose you're considering taking a programming job in the same language as
your hobby programming language.
1. Do you use your hobby source code in your job ?
This could create problems ?!?
2. For example without thinking about it you might loose the rights to your
hobby source code.
So what would you do ?
1. Don't even take a job in the same programming language as your hobby.
2. Don't even use your hobby source code.
3. In case you do use it, give the company a license to use your compiled
source, they probably won't like that.
4. Give the company a license to use your source code.
5. "Open Source" your code... like gnu license.
6. Make your source code freeware.
Again I ask... which alternative would you use... is there another
alternative ?
In short what would you do ?
( I also tried to ask the Slashdot crowd this same question by submitting a
"story" to "AskSlashdot" but it's been pending for two days and I no longer
like to wait ;) Besides from that... most of the time there are a lot of
funny (non-serious) or drifting threads/replies from the slashdot crowd...
which make it hard to follow... not to mention the slashdot interface <- not
being able to follow a thread well... so maybe it's for the best to ask it
in newsgroup(s) anyway... <- a bit more serious replies and usually some
drifting too :) and more easy to follows threads ;) at least for me ;) )
( I know it's not a question directly related to delphi, c,c++, java, pascal
or whatever language but I would still like to know what you experienced
programmers think about this ;) )
( Languages mentioned in newsgroup order ;) )
Bye,
Skybuck.

Skybuck

the answer is simple, You make all issues complex and pushed to the limits.

Simply let your boss know what you are doing. Have him sign a document
that this is from your prior work or hobby work. and he is gaining the
use of this code because of your relationship with his company but to
realize this is written on my personal time and not work related, and
that they have access to this code because of that but they are to
respect that it came from prior or hobby work.

Now if this is a major amount of work that is a different story.

But simply your learning a langauge and some small example code - - that
does not count. and will make you look bad.

All companies expect their programmers to have tools and tricks they
learned from before they were hired. That is one reason you got the job
and the other person did not.

Jim P.

[Victor Bazarov]

Post by Skybuck Flying
Suppose you have programmed a lot of "re-useable" source code.

I hope I have. That's my job.

Post by Skybuck Flying
Suppose you're considering taking a programming job in the same language as
your hobby programming language.

That's an interesting supposition...

Post by Skybuck Flying
1. Do you use your hobby source code in your job ?

I would.

Post by Skybuck Flying
This could create problems ?!?

Not really. Oh, rather, they are easily preventable.

Post by Skybuck Flying
2. For example without thinking about it you might loose the rights to your
hobby source code.

You're absolutely correct. Especially when you can't spell, any legal
matter can become unsurmountable.

Post by Skybuck Flying
So what would you do ?
1. Don't even take a job in the same programming language as your hobby.

Won't work. Often algorithms easily cross language barriers and you end
up using your ideas in any language you happen to be employed for.

Post by Skybuck Flying
2. Don't even use your hobby source code.

But it's already there. Why waste time inventing anything _different_?
Life's too short.

Post by Skybuck Flying
3. In case you do use it, give the company a license to use your compiled
source, they probably won't like that.

They won't. They will probably want to hire somebody else. You could,
of course, negotiate such license upfront before agreeing to be hired.

Post by Skybuck Flying
4. Give the company a license to use your source code.

...beforehand.

Post by Skybuck Flying
5. "Open Source" your code... like gnu license.

Requires the company to agree to use it under the GPL terms. Not every
company would do that.

Post by Skybuck Flying
6. Make your source code freeware.

That's what US government often does. Stimulates the use and promotes
progress. I happen to agree with this practice. Instead of limiting
the number of people who can benefit from it, make everybody's day.

Post by Skybuck Flying
Again I ask... which alternative would you use... is there another
alternative ?

Yes. Publishing it anywhere does NOT mean making it gnu or free. You
stake your rights as soon as you publish it. Of course, without any
specific licensing terms the company won't be able to use it.

Post by Skybuck Flying
In short what would you do ?

It depends. And mostly on the value of the code. And not only some kind
of objective value, but specifically the value as _you_ see it and as your
company sees it. If the code is outstanding, publish it as a product and
convince your company to use it. If your company sees the ROI, they might
even buy it from you, and then you just need to negotiate the contract
terms. You can sell it whole, you can sell a snapshot and continue with
its development, you can see a service contract... All of which is shady,
especially the last one, since you have exclusive access to your client's
insider information.

Post by Skybuck Flying
( I also tried to ask the Slashdot crowd this same question by submitting a
"story" to "AskSlashdot" but it's been pending for two days and I no longer
like to wait ;) Besides from that... most of the time there are a lot of
funny (non-serious) or drifting threads/replies from the slashdot crowd...
which make it hard to follow... not to mention the slashdot interface <- not
being able to follow a thread well... so maybe it's for the best to ask it
in newsgroup(s) anyway... <- a bit more serious replies and usually some
drifting too :) and more easy to follows threads ;) at least for me ;) )
( I know it's not a question directly related to delphi, c,c++, java, pascal
or whatever language but I would still like to know what you experienced
programmers think about this ;) )

I would continue this in comp.software-eng or in misc.legal.computing.

V

[Chris Smith]

Post by Skybuck Flying
Suppose you have programmed a lot of "re-useable" source code.
Suppose you're considering taking a programming job in the same language as
your hobby programming language.

Yep. There are actually two issues here:

A. Does the code you write or have written belong to you or your
employer in the first place?

B. Are you transferring ownership if you include the code in their
product?

The answer to A lies in your employment contract. Mine, for example,
contains a clause specifying that my employer doesn't own code I write
if all these conditions are met:

1. It's not written during regular business hours except during vacation
and holidays.
2. It's not written using resources belonging to the company in a way
that competes with the company's use of those same resources.
3. I do not receive any compensation for writing the software.
4. The software does not compete directly with my employer's products or
services in their core business area.

Of course, the actual clause in the contract is written in legalese, but
that's the general idea. You would want something like that in your own
contract. Which conditions are acceptable to you and your employer is a
matter of discussion -- for example, the clause about compensation may
not be acceptable to you, but it is acceptable to me and made the
negotiation go much smoother with my employer.

Post by Skybuck Flying
5. "Open Source" your code... like gnu license.

If possible, this is ideal. That way, you don't need to negotiate any
specific agreement with your employer. If open-source is not acceptable
to you, then...

Post by Skybuck Flying
4. Give the company a license to use your source code.

This is probably the only other choice which would be acceptable to your
employer, aside from not using it at all. You'll need a specific legal
contract with your employer setting out terms of use. You probably need
a lawyer to write it for you.

[Nils O. Selåsdal]

Post by Skybuck Flying
Ok,
Suppose you have programmed a lot of "re-useable" source code.
Suppose you're considering taking a programming job in the same language as
your hobby programming language.
1. Do you use your hobby source code in your job ?

Sure.

Post by Skybuck Flying
This could create problems ?!?

Sure

Post by Skybuck Flying
2. For example without thinking about it you might loose the rights to your
hobby source code.

No/depends on the license.
The solution: Start thinking.

[E. Robert Tisdale]

Post by Skybuck Flying
Suppose you have programmed a lot of "re-useable" source code.
Suppose you're considering taking a programming job
in the same language as your hobby programming language.
1. Do you use your hobby source code in your job?
This could create problems?
2. For example, without thinking about it
you might loose the rights to your hobby source code.
So what would you do?
1. Don't even take a job in the same programming language as your hobby.
2. Don't even use your hobby source code.
3. In case you do use it, give the company a license to use your compiled
source, they probably won't like that.
4. Give the company a license to use your source code.
5. "Open Source" your code... like gnu license.
6. Make your source code freeware.
Again I ask... which alternative would you use...
is there another alternative?
In short what would you do?

You *must* copyright your code.
Usually, it is sufficient to write something like

Copyright 2004 Skybuck Flying

somewhere near the top of each source file.

Your employer cannot compel you to transfer the copyright
for code that you wrote on your own time
or code that you wrote for another employer.

You can re-write code that you have written before
for your new employer but you cannot copy any of the old code.
This is probably the best solution as it gives you a chance
to fix mistakes that you make in the old code.

My experience is that employers have no objection
to using third party packages or even freeware
if they can get the necessary licenses at a reasonable price.
Don't try to *sell* your employer a license
as this creates a "conflict of interest".
You can distribute your code under an open source license
and you should try to convince your employer
to allow you to "contribute" to the package
which would allow you to maintain your software on company time.

[Keith Thompson]

This entire discussion is off-topic in comp.lang.c, where I'm reading
it, and probably in all the other newsgroups to which it's posted.

"E. Robert Tisdale" <***@jpl.nasa.gov> writes:
[...]

Post by E. Robert Tisdale
You *must* copyright your code.
Usually, it is sufficient to write something like
Copyright 2004 Skybuck Flying
somewhere near the top of each source file.

My understanding is that any written work is automatically copyrighted
as soon as it's set down in tangible form. I'm not sure what, if any,
additional legal protection is added by using a copyright header.

Post by E. Robert Tisdale
Your employer cannot compel you to transfer the copyright
for code that you wrote on your own time
or code that you wrote for another employer.

I'm not convinced that that's accurate. It's at least partly a matter
of whatever contractual arrangement you have with your employer.

There are some things your employer can tell you to do, with the
threat of firing you (or refusing to hire you in the first place) if
you fail to do it. I don't know whether that includes telling you to
transfer the copyright for code that you wrote on your own time.

Bottom line, ERT is not a lawyer, and neither am I. I strongly
recommend not depending on either of us for legal advice. If you
insist on seeking legal advice from Usenet, at least post in a
newsgroup where your question is topical. The misc.legal.computing
newsgroup looks promising based on its name, but I know nothing more
about it.

[E. Robert Tisdale]

Post by Keith Thompson
This entire discussion is off-topic in comp.lang.c, where I'm reading
it, and probably in all the other newsgroups to which it's posted.
[...]

Post by E. Robert Tisdale
You *must* copyright your code.
Usually, it is sufficient to write something like
Copyright 2004 Skybuck Flying
somewhere near the top of each source file.

My understanding is that any written work
is automatically copyrighted as soon as it's set down in tangible form.

It probably is but how does a judge and jury determine
that the copyright belongs to you and not someone else?

Post by Keith Thompson
I'm not sure what, if any, additional legal protection is added
by using a copyright header.

It's evidence that you claimed the copyright at some point in time.

Post by Keith Thompson

Post by E. Robert Tisdale
Your employer cannot compel you to transfer the copyright
for code that you wrote on your own time
or code that you wrote for another employer.

I'm not convinced that that's accurate. It's at least partly a matter
of whatever contractual arrangement you have with your employer.

No legal contractual agreement
can compel you to help your new employer steal code
that you wrote for a former employer.

Post by Keith Thompson
There are some things your employer can tell you to do,
with the threat of firing you
(or refusing to hire you in the first place)
if you fail to do it.
I don't know whether that includes telling you
to transfer the copyright for code that you wrote on your own time.

If you agree to such a transfer before you are hired,
the court will probably assume that your decision was voluntary.
If they try to do so after you are employed,
you can claim duress and the transfer is nullified.

Post by Keith Thompson
Bottom line, ERT is not a lawyer, and neither am I.
I strongly recommend not depending on either of us for legal advice.

I agree.
See a lawyer who is expert in computer law.

Post by Keith Thompson
If you insist on seeking legal advice from Usenet,
at least post in a newsgroup where your question is topical.
The misc.legal.computing newsgroup looks promising based on its name,
but I know nothing more about it.

[Stephen Sprunk]

Post by E. Robert Tisdale

Post by Keith Thompson
My understanding is that any written work
is automatically copyrighted as soon as it's set down in tangible form.

It probably is but how does a judge and jury determine
that the copyright belongs to you and not someone else?

Article 3 of the Berne Convention states that, at least for citizens of
member countries, all works by an author are protected whether published or
not.

Article 15 states that, "in the absence of proof to the contrary, ... it
shall be sufficient for [the author's] name to appear on the work in the
usual manner."

Post by E. Robert Tisdale

Post by Keith Thompson
I'm not sure what, if any, additional legal protection is added
by using a copyright header.

It's evidence that you claimed the copyright at some point in time.

It's prima facie evidence; once someone provides evidence that you are not
the author, what name is on the work is irrelevant.

Post by E. Robert Tisdale

Post by Keith Thompson

Post by E. Robert Tisdale
Your employer cannot compel you to transfer the copyright
for code that you wrote on your own time
or code that you wrote for another employer.

I'm not convinced that that's accurate. It's at least partly a matter
of whatever contractual arrangement you have with your employer.

No legal contractual agreement
can compel you to help your new employer steal code
that you wrote for a former employer.

Obviously a contract cannot compel you to violate the copyright of a former
employer.

However, if the code is yours (not a work for hire), you can certainly by
compelled by contract to hand all of your copyrights over to someone. In
fact, that seems to be a standard part of most employment contracts these
days. Specifically, you must typically name all works that you are _not_
handing over. That makes it difficult to exclude future works, but there is
at least one creative solution to that.

S

[RCollins]

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by E. Robert Tisdale

Post by Keith Thompson
My understanding is that any written work
is automatically copyrighted as soon as it's set down in tangible form.

It probably is but how does a judge and jury determine
that the copyright belongs to you and not someone else?

Article 3 of the Berne Convention states that, at least for citizens of
member countries, all works by an author are protected whether published
or not.
Article 15 states that, "in the absence of proof to the contrary, ... it
shall be sufficient for [the author's] name to appear on the work in the
usual manner."

Post by E. Robert Tisdale

Post by Keith Thompson
I'm not sure what, if any, additional legal protection is added
by using a copyright header.

It's evidence that you claimed the copyright at some point in time.

It's prima facie evidence; once someone provides evidence that you are
not the author, what name is on the work is irrelevant.

Post by E. Robert Tisdale

Post by Keith Thompson

Post by E. Robert Tisdale
Your employer cannot compel you to transfer the copyright
for code that you wrote on your own time
or code that you wrote for another employer.

I'm not convinced that that's accurate. It's at least partly a matter
of whatever contractual arrangement you have with your employer.

No legal contractual agreement
can compel you to help your new employer steal code
that you wrote for a former employer.

Obviously a contract cannot compel you to violate the copyright of a
former employer.
However, if the code is yours (not a work for hire), you can certainly
by compelled by contract to hand all of your copyrights over to
someone.

I'm sorry, I don't understand this. How can a company (whether I work
for them or not) lay claim to a product that I developed on my own time,
using my own equipment and resources? (Excluding, of course, the normal
"conflict of interest" clauses, which says I may not compete for
business with my employer.)

Post by Stephen Sprunk
In fact, that seems to be a standard part of most employment
contracts these days.

I have dealt with quite a few software contract workers, both
self-employed and those employed by an agency, but I've never seen
anything like this. OTOH, my professional arena is rather specialized,
with not a lot of players. In what engineering discipline would the
contract clause you mentioned above be considered "standard"? (I may
want to avoid that area in the future!)

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Specifically, you must typically name all works
that you are _not_ handing over. That makes it difficult to exclude
future works, but there is at least one creative solution to that.
S

[Andrew Koenig]

Post by RCollins
I'm sorry, I don't understand this. How can a company (whether I work
for them or not) lay claim to a product that I developed on my own time,
using my own equipment and resources? (Excluding, of course, the normal
"conflict of interest" clauses, which says I may not compete for
business with my employer.)

Unless you're being paid by the hour, there is no such thing as "your own
time".

[Joona I Palaste]

Post by Andrew Koenig

Post by RCollins
I'm sorry, I don't understand this. How can a company (whether I work
for them or not) lay claim to a product that I developed on my own time,
using my own equipment and resources? (Excluding, of course, the normal
"conflict of interest" clauses, which says I may not compete for
business with my employer.)

Unless you're being paid by the hour, there is no such thing as "your own
time".

Not even on weekends?

[Andrew Koenig]

Post by Joona I Palaste

Post by Andrew Koenig
Unless you're being paid by the hour, there is no such thing as "your own
time".

Not even on weekends?

In general, no. It's a matter of what you and your employer agree on.

[E. Robert Tisdale]

Post by Andrew Koenig
Unless you're being paid by the hour,
there is no such thing as "your own time".

Spoken like a true company man.
Who owns you?

[Andrew Koenig]

Post by E. Robert Tisdale

Post by Andrew Koenig
Unless you're being paid by the hour, there is no such thing as "your own
time".

Spoken like a true company man.
Who owns you?

No one. Not any more. That's part of the reason.

[E. Robert Tisdale]

Post by Andrew Koenig

Post by E. Robert Tisdale
Who owns you?

No one. Not any more. That's part of the reason.

http://careerlaunch.jpl.nasa.gov/

[J***@physik.fu-berlin.de]

Post by E. Robert Tisdale

Post by Andrew Koenig

Post by E. Robert Tisdale
Who owns you?

No one. Not any more. That's part of the reason.

http://careerlaunch.jpl.nasa.gov/

Wow, now I am deeply impressed:

"The JPL Career Launch website is compatible with

Microsoft Internet Explorer versions 5.5 & 6.0
and Netscape Navigator version 4.7 & 7.0

In order to access the JPL Career Launch website using a Macintosh
you must use Internet Explorer under a PC emulator."

And even for that they need an image... They can't create a working
website when they are supposed to do rocket science?

Regards, Jens

[Joona I Palaste]

Post by J***@physik.fu-berlin.de

Post by E. Robert Tisdale

Post by Andrew Koenig

Post by E. Robert Tisdale
Who owns you?

No one. Not any more. That's part of the reason.

http://careerlaunch.jpl.nasa.gov/

"The JPL Career Launch website is compatible with
Microsoft Internet Explorer versions 5.5 & 6.0
and Netscape Navigator version 4.7 & 7.0
In order to access the JPL Career Launch website using a Macintosh
you must use Internet Explorer under a PC emulator."
And even for that they need an image... They can't create a working
website when they are supposed to do rocket science?

As well as that, I seriously doubt any part of their website actually
*requires* Billware or Netscape. I am using Mozilla 1.7.3 on Linux (an
OS which I doubt the designers of the website have ever heard of), and
I could enter as a guest and search for available jobs just fine. I
tried referring a job to another person but that option is for
registered visitors only.

[CBFalconer]

... snip ...

Post by J***@physik.fu-berlin.de

Post by E. Robert Tisdale
http://careerlaunch.jpl.nasa.gov/

"The JPL Career Launch website is compatible with
Microsoft Internet Explorer versions 5.5 & 6.0
and Netscape Navigator version 4.7 & 7.0
In order to access the JPL Career Launch website using a Macintosh
you must use Internet Explorer under a PC emulator."
And even for that they need an image... They can't create a working
website when they are supposed to do rocket science?

For further (and similar impression) follow the writings of a
certain ERT in c.l.c over the past few years. You will be amazed
that any US space entities ever reached any objectives. I suspect
that JPL should refund any and all monies received.

[Old Wolf]

Post by J***@physik.fu-berlin.de

Post by E. Robert Tisdale
http://careerlaunch.jpl.nasa.gov/

"The JPL Career Launch website is compatible with
Microsoft Internet Explorer versions 5.5 & 6.0
and Netscape Navigator version 4.7 & 7.0
In order to access the JPL Career Launch website using a Macintosh
you must use Internet Explorer under a PC emulator."
And even for that they need an image... They can't create a working
website when they are supposed to do rocket science?

Why are you surprised. ERT thinks that C is defined by
what his compiler outputs. I wonder what JPL would have
done if Microsoft hadn't invented the interweb.

[Ann]

Post by E. Robert Tisdale

Post by Andrew Koenig
Unless you're being paid by the hour,
there is no such thing as "your own time".

Spoken like a true company man.
Who owns you?

Reminds me of the time the boss called us in for a chat
about "no overtime pay" and he says:
Those of you that are hourly, you are not allowed to work overtime.
Those of you that are staff, you are paid to get a job done.

[Andrew Thompson]

Post by Ann

Post by E. Robert Tisdale

Post by Andrew Koenig
Unless you're being paid by the hour,
there is no such thing as "your own time".

Spoken like a true company man.
Who owns you?

Reminds me of the time the boss called us in for a chat
Those of you that are hourly, you are not allowed to work overtime.
Those of you that are staff, you are paid to get a job done.

Why were the staffers' even at the meeting? Why weren't they
already working (their little fingers to the bone)?

If a member of the staff even required that to be explained,
it would be in person, one to one, and immediately followed by
"..that's why the company will not be renewing your contract.
Good luck with future positions.".

[ I would have set follow-ups if there was a single group in that
slew of x-posts that was even slightly relevant. ]

[RCollins]

Post by Andrew Koenig

Post by RCollins
I'm sorry, I don't understand this. How can a company (whether I work
for them or not) lay claim to a product that I developed on my own time,
using my own equipment and resources? (Excluding, of course, the normal
"conflict of interest" clauses, which says I may not compete for
business with my employer.)

Unless you're being paid by the hour, there is no such thing as "your own
time".

Hmmm ... my company (Raytheon) has a well-defined and documented policy
on what constitutes "my time" and "their time". This is contained
within the "conflict of interest" company practices, and referenced by
the company's "ethics standards" that all employees are required to
learn (we are also required to get 'refresher' training in these
subjects each year).

Some weeks, my job requires me to work considerably more than the
standard 40 hours ... but no one there would even *think* about taking
my "hobby programming" from me without (a more than generous)
compensation.

[Andrew Koenig]

Post by RCollins
Hmmm ... my company (Raytheon) has a well-defined and documented policy
on what constitutes "my time" and "their time". This is contained
within the "conflict of interest" company practices, and referenced by
the company's "ethics standards" that all employees are required to
learn (we are also required to get 'refresher' training in these
subjects each year).
Some weeks, my job requires me to work considerably more than the
standard 40 hours ... but no one there would even *think* about taking
my "hobby programming" from me without (a more than generous)
compensation.

If your employer changed their mind about this policy, there wouldn't be
much you could do about it short of leaving.
So it's not really your time--it's time that they are letting you have at
their discretion.

[E. Robert Tisdale]

Post by Andrew Koenig
If your employer changed their mind about this policy,
there wouldn't be much you could do about it short of leaving.
So it's not really your time --
it's time that they are letting you have at their discretion.

So you've had a bad experience with a previous employer.
Get over it.
The world is full of employers
who are quite willing to hire people
even if they do have a backbone.

[Mark McIntyre]

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 01:10:09 GMT, in comp.lang.c , "Andrew Koenig"

Post by Andrew Koenig
If your employer changed their mind about this policy, there wouldn't be
much you could do about it short of leaving.

Under UK and EU law, they can't do that without asking you to sign a new
contract, and you have no obligation to do so. Furthermore they can't
dismiss you for refusing.

Post by Andrew Koenig
So it's not really your time--it's time that they are letting you have at
their discretion.

When you have children, you realise that there is no such concept as "your"
time.....

[Jim P]

Post by Mark McIntyre
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 01:10:09 GMT, in comp.lang.c , "Andrew Koenig"

Post by Andrew Koenig
If your employer changed their mind about this policy, there wouldn't be
much you could do about it short of leaving.

Under UK and EU law, they can't do that without asking you to sign a new
contract, and you have no obligation to do so. Furthermore they can't
dismiss you for refusing.

Post by Andrew Koenig
So it's not really your time--it's time that they are letting you have at
their discretion.

When you have children, you realise that there is no such concept as "your"
time.....

AH, not quite but you are close on that. I have a great kid that I spend
a lot of time with. Girl friends kid. and we work as a team. really a
bright boy. 9 years old and already learning VB. I got him a book
called Beginning programming for Dummies and he is reading it on his own
and playing on the computer doing code. Asks questions and learns. - I
do not live with his mother. SO a lot is done on his own. He wants to
come over and spend a day watching me program in Delphi. - - I am going
- ah huh. He is a quick learner. Show him once and he has it. and
understands it. - -

Jim P.

[Ann]

Post by Jim P

Post by Mark McIntyre
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 01:10:09 GMT, in comp.lang.c , "Andrew Koenig"

Post by Andrew Koenig
If your employer changed their mind about this policy, there wouldn't be
much you could do about it short of leaving.

Under UK and EU law, they can't do that without asking you to sign a new
contract, and you have no obligation to do so. Furthermore they can't
dismiss you for refusing.

Post by Andrew Koenig
So it's not really your time--it's time that they are letting you have at
their discretion.

When you have children, you realise that there is no such concept as "your"
time.....

AH, not quite but you are close on that. I have a great kid that I spend
a lot of time with. Girl friends kid. and we work as a team. really a
bright boy. 9 years old and already learning VB. I got him a book
called Beginning programming for Dummies and he is reading it on his own
and playing on the computer doing code. Asks questions and learns. - I
do not live with his mother. SO a lot is done on his own. He wants to
come over and spend a day watching me program in Delphi. - - I am going
- ah huh. He is a quick learner. Show him once and he has it. and
understands it. - -
Jim P.

Kids are great that way. I started my younger boy at about that age on
a Radio Shack Color Computer with built in MS basic. He learned it all
himself, was motivated by being able to easily make various graphics games.

[Andrew Koenig]

Post by Mark McIntyre
Under UK and EU law, they can't do that without asking you to sign a new
contract, and you have no obligation to do so. Furthermore they can't
dismiss you for refusing.

Things aren't like that in the USA.

[Stephen Sprunk]

Post by Mark McIntyre
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 01:10:09 GMT, in comp.lang.c , "Andrew Koenig"

Post by Andrew Koenig
If your employer changed their mind about this policy, there wouldn't be
much you could do about it short of leaving.

Under UK and EU law, they can't do that without asking you to sign a new
contract, and you have no obligation to do so. Furthermore they can't
dismiss you for refusing.

Refusing to sign a new contract can get you canned here, and that's
perfectly legal in most cases. However, most companies are willing to
negotiate a bit since the cost of replacing you (recruiting, hiring,
training, etc.) is significant.

In the US, unless you're part of a union you're usually under what's called
"at will" employment, which means either party can terminate the agreement
at any time, with or without cause, except for a few cases (e.g.
discrimination, harrassment) specified by law. Some states do require a
minimum of two weeks' notice, and it's common practice even in states that
do not.

S

[RCollins]

Post by Andrew Koenig

Post by RCollins
Hmmm ... my company (Raytheon) has a well-defined and documented policy
on what constitutes "my time" and "their time". This is contained
within the "conflict of interest" company practices, and referenced by
the company's "ethics standards" that all employees are required to
learn (we are also required to get 'refresher' training in these
subjects each year).
Some weeks, my job requires me to work considerably more than the
standard 40 hours ... but no one there would even *think* about taking
my "hobby programming" from me without (a more than generous)
compensation.

If your employer changed their mind about this policy, there wouldn't be
much you could do about it short of leaving.
So it's not really your time--it's time that they are letting you have at
their discretion.

Not likely... most U.S. busniness are *not* the evil overlords that most
science-fiction writers would have you believe.

A modern engineering company (such as Raytheon) tries very hard to keep
it's engineering staff happy and "well fed" with intersting projects.
If I create something "on my own time" that the company wants, they will
truly make me a very generous offer for that product. In 20 years, I
have never heard of the company "comandeering" a hobby project from an
employee. (Although I personally know of several people who earned an
outstanding bonus or 'perk' due to hobby research they were pursueing on
their own.)

[Jim P]

Post by RCollins

Post by Andrew Koenig

Post by RCollins
Hmmm ... my company (Raytheon) has a well-defined and documented policy
on what constitutes "my time" and "their time". This is contained
within the "conflict of interest" company practices, and referenced by
the company's "ethics standards" that all employees are required to
learn (we are also required to get 'refresher' training in these
subjects each year).
Some weeks, my job requires me to work considerably more than the
standard 40 hours ... but no one there would even *think* about taking
my "hobby programming" from me without (a more than generous)
compensation.

If your employer changed their mind about this policy, there wouldn't
be much you could do about it short of leaving.
So it's not really your time--it's time that they are letting you have
at their discretion.

Not likely... most U.S. busniness are *not* the evil overlords that most
science-fiction writers would have you believe.
A modern engineering company (such as Raytheon) tries very hard to keep
it's engineering staff happy and "well fed" with intersting projects.
If I create something "on my own time" that the company wants, they will
truly make me a very generous offer for that product. In 20 years, I
have never heard of the company "comandeering" a hobby project from an
employee. (Although I personally know of several people who earned an
outstanding bonus or 'perk' due to hobby research they were pursueing on
their own.)

That matches with what I would expect from any large company. Formal
policies and concepts.

But smaller companies - - it might not be the same - -

I still feel it is up to how it is handled and what a persons attitude
about it is to the company. If the conversations are handled right. But
if handled wrong then emotions come into play and anything can happen.

Jim P.

[Richard Bos]

Post by RCollins

Post by Andrew Koenig
If your employer changed their mind about this policy, there wouldn't be
much you could do about it short of leaving.
So it's not really your time--it's time that they are letting you have at
their discretion.

Not likely... most U.S. busniness are *not* the evil overlords that most
science-fiction writers would have you believe.
A modern engineering company (such as Raytheon) tries very hard to keep
it's engineering staff happy and "well fed" with intersting projects.
If I create something "on my own time" that the company wants, they will
truly make me a very generous offer for that product.

And what happens if you refuse? That, I think, is the real test.

Richard

[Jim P]

Post by Richard Bos

Post by RCollins

Post by Andrew Koenig
If your employer changed their mind about this policy, there wouldn't be
much you could do about it short of leaving.
So it's not really your time--it's time that they are letting you have at
their discretion.

Not likely... most U.S. busniness are *not* the evil overlords that most
science-fiction writers would have you believe.
A modern engineering company (such as Raytheon) tries very hard to keep
it's engineering staff happy and "well fed" with intersting projects.
If I create something "on my own time" that the company wants, they will
truly make me a very generous offer for that product.

And what happens if you refuse? That, I think, is the real test.
Richard

To me, I would have been open and upfront about what I was doing in my
time. I would have made comment about it around the company - - other
workers and even with the boss around. and if he is a good boss he
would be noticing this and paying attention and asking questions about
it. - - - as I said before this type of person makes a good engineer and
programmer. the 8 to 5 this is only a job - - do not. I would want to
keep the one that really digs this stuff.

I would not do this as a hidden and secert project for that just raises
questions of why did you hide this.

In fact many boss, would encourage this type of work and I know of some
that have heard of someone needing a consultant and they point an
employee to that company - for a side job. - - - and they know that
some of their programmers and engineers are doing small side jobs for
different companies.

I would not be running around shouting or bragging about any side work
but I would not make it a secret or hide it. That just raises a lot of
questions.

I have even seen companies allow - the employee to use company equipment
for this type of work. as it makes the employee happy. As long as it is
after hours work and does not effect company work.

Jim P.

[Stephen Sprunk]

Post by RCollins

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Obviously a contract cannot compel you to violate the copyright of a
former employer.
However, if the code is yours (not a work for hire), you can certainly by
compelled by contract to hand all of your copyrights over to someone.

I'm sorry, I don't understand this. How can a company (whether I work
for them or not) lay claim to a product that I developed on my own time,
using my own equipment and resources? (Excluding, of course, the normal
"conflict of interest" clauses, which says I may not compete for
business with my employer.)

Very simple: part of your employment contract requires you to assign to the
company copyright and ownership of any original works produced, modified, or
published by you during the term of your employment. Unless you
specifically negotiate one, there is usually no exemption for things done on
"personal time". They do provide a place where you can declare any works
you produced or owned prior to entering their employ; anything on that list
is exempt from the assignment, but anything not on the list becomes a "work
for hire" on behalf of the company if you so much as think about it while
you're employed there.

One might consider that last unenforceable, but with enough money, lawyers
can make any pig fly... A former employer of mine sued a coworker to
"recover" the rights to a shareware program he authored, despite him not
having worked on it for years before he started that job, it not having
brought him a single cent in donations, and it being completely unrelated to
the company's business. He lost a long (and expensive) case in court, and
HR put him on a performance plan (i.e. no raises or promotions) due to his
"excessive" absences from work during the trial.

Post by RCollins

Post by Stephen Sprunk
In fact, that seems to be a standard part of most employment contracts
these days.

I have dealt with quite a few software contract workers, both
self-employed and those employed by an agency, but I've never seen
anything like this. OTOH, my professional arena is rather specialized,
with not a lot of players. In what engineering discipline would the
contract clause you mentioned above be considered "standard"? (I may
want to avoid that area in the future!)

It wasn't even an engineering or programming company in the first place!
All we did was Windows helpdesk and NT administration outsourcing and run a
little bit of cabling -- nothing even remotely resembling creating works
for hire nor having any conceivable use for the software he had written.
The contract was simply boilerplate that all employees were required to
sign, from VPs down to shipping clerks, and someone discovered that he
forgot to list this dinky piece of shareware as a prior work when was
hired...

I've worked for three different hw/sw vendors since then, and two of them
had contracts of the form I described above. I'm told that they're pretty
easy to negotiate changes to, particularly in the realm of open-source
contributions, but since I have no personal works to protect I haven't
considered it worth the hassle and expense.

S

[Steve Sobol]

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Very simple: part of your employment contract requires you to assign to
the company copyright and ownership of any original works produced,
modified, or published by you during the term of your employment.
Unless you specifically negotiate one, there is usually no exemption for
things done on "personal time". They do provide a place where you can
declare any works you produced or owned prior to entering their employ;
anything on that list is exempt from the assignment, but anything not on
the list becomes a "work for hire" on behalf of the company if you so
much as think about it while you're employed there.

I have not yet had to agree to an employment clause like this (perhaps because
I don't tend to work for large companies), and I will turn down a job before
ever agreeing to something like this. Way, way, way too broad.

The employer has every right to protect its interests -- but this kind of thing
goes past protecting the company's interests.

Of course, my situation is a little different from yours. My primary line of
work is software and website development. I am pretty sure yours isn't. :)

[Jim P]

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by RCollins

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Obviously a contract cannot compel you to violate the copyright of a
former employer.
However, if the code is yours (not a work for hire), you can
certainly by compelled by contract to hand all of your copyrights
over to someone.

I'm sorry, I don't understand this. How can a company (whether I work
for them or not) lay claim to a product that I developed on my own time,
using my own equipment and resources? (Excluding, of course, the normal
"conflict of interest" clauses, which says I may not compete for
business with my employer.)

Very simple: part of your employment contract requires you to assign to
the company copyright and ownership of any original works produced,
modified, or published by you during the term of your employment.
Unless you specifically negotiate one, there is usually no exemption for
things done on "personal time". They do provide a place where you can
declare any works you produced or owned prior to entering their employ;
anything on that list is exempt from the assignment, but anything not on
the list becomes a "work for hire" on behalf of the company if you so
much as think about it while you're employed there.
One might consider that last unenforceable, but with enough money,
lawyers can make any pig fly... A former employer of mine sued a
coworker to "recover" the rights to a shareware program he authored,
despite him not having worked on it for years before he started that
job, it not having brought him a single cent in donations, and it being
completely unrelated to the company's business. He lost a long (and
expensive) case in court, and HR put him on a performance plan (i.e. no
raises or promotions) due to his "excessive" absences from work during
the trial.

Post by RCollins

Post by Stephen Sprunk
In fact, that seems to be a standard part of most employment
contracts these days.

I have dealt with quite a few software contract workers, both
self-employed and those employed by an agency, but I've never seen
anything like this. OTOH, my professional arena is rather specialized,
with not a lot of players. In what engineering discipline would the
contract clause you mentioned above be considered "standard"? (I may
want to avoid that area in the future!)

It wasn't even an engineering or programming company in the first place!
All we did was Windows helpdesk and NT administration outsourcing and
run a little bit of cabling -- nothing even remotely resembling
creating works for hire nor having any conceivable use for the software
he had written. The contract was simply boilerplate that all employees
were required to sign, from VPs down to shipping clerks, and someone
discovered that he forgot to list this dinky piece of shareware as a
prior work when was hired...
I've worked for three different hw/sw vendors since then, and two of
them had contracts of the form I described above. I'm told that they're
pretty easy to negotiate changes to, particularly in the realm of
open-source contributions, but since I have no personal works to protect
I haven't considered it worth the hassle and expense.
S

I have found that a person telling story my not be telling the whole story.

Somethings things are more related than people realise or are willing to
say.

Jim P.

[Siemel Naran]

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Very simple: part of your employment contract requires you to assign to the
company copyright and ownership of any original works produced, modified, or
published by you during the term of your employment. Unless you
specifically negotiate one, there is usually no exemption for things done on
"personal time". They do provide a place where you can declare any works
you produced or owned prior to entering their employ; anything on that list
is exempt from the assignment, but anything not on the list becomes a "work
for hire" on behalf of the company if you so much as think about it while
you're employed there.

It may depend on the state. In California we have labor code 2870. Other
states may have similar laws protecting the individual. You can search for
it on google.

<Quote Description="California Labor Code Section 2870-2872">

2870.
(a) Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee
shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention
to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee
developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer's
equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information except for
those inventions that either: Relate at the time of conception or reduction
to practice of the invention to the employer's business, or actual or
demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or Result
from any work performed by the employee for the employer.

(b) To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports to require
an employee to assign an invention otherwise excluded from being required to
be assigned under subdivision (a), the provision is against the public
policy of this state and is unenforceable.

2871
No employer shall require a provision made void and unenforceable by Section
2870 as a condition of employment or continued employment. Nothing in this
article shall be construed to forbid or restrict the right of an employer to
provide in contracts of employment for disclosure, provided that any such
disclosures be received in confidence, of all of the employee's inventions
made solely or jointly with others during the term of his or her employment,
a review process by the employer to determine such issues as may arise, and
for full title to certain patents and inventions to be in the United States,
as required by contracts between the employer and the United States or any
of its agencies.

2872
If an employment agreement entered into after January 1, 1980, contains a
provision requiring the employee to assign or offer to assign any of his or
her rights in any invention to his or her employer, the employer must also,
at the time the agreement is made provide a written notification to the
employee that the agreement does not apply to an invention which qualifies
fully under the provisions of Section 2870. In any suit or action arising
thereunder, the burden of proof shall be on the employee claiming the
benefits of its provisions.

</Quote>

(2870)(a) suggests that if you create code with your own resources, it is
yours to keep. But (2870)(b) seems vaguely worded and appears to contradict
the previous statement.

[Jerry Coffin]

Keith Thompson <kst-***@mib.org> wrote in message news:<lnbrda8yc7.fsf_-***@nuthaus.mib.org>...

[ ... ]

Post by Keith Thompson
My understanding is that any written work is automatically copyrighted
as soon as it's set down in tangible form. I'm not sure what, if any,
additional legal protection is added by using a copyright header.

At least in those portions of the world that follow the "usual"
international copyright laws (i.e. the Berne Convention) I don't
believe it should make any difference at all. Under these laws, you're
correct: the work is protected under copyright until or unless you
specify otherwise.

At least in the countries of which I'm aware, the next step beyond
that would be to register the copyright. This often affects what
happens when/if your copyright is violated. With an unregistered
copyright, you can typically only stop the violation. With a
registered copyright you can also recover monetary damages.

If the OP is in the US, he might want to look at:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

for more authoritative information on copyrights. I'd presume most
other countries have similar sites, but since I didn't see the OP's
post, I'm not sure which would apply.

Post by Keith Thompson
I'm not convinced that that's accurate. It's at least partly a matter
of whatever contractual arrangement you have with your employer.

This would fall under contract law. The Berne Convention provides
relative uniformity of copyright laws, but no such thing has happened
with contract law. It varies widely from one country to another, and
often even within a country (e.g. in the US, contracts are governed
(at least primarily) by state law).

Of course, the usual disclaimers apply: I'm not an attorney and
nothing I say should be construed as legal advice.

[MikeB]

Post by Keith Thompson
My understanding is that any written work is automatically copyrighted
as soon as it's set down in tangible form. I'm not sure what, if any,
additional legal protection is added by using a copyright header.

I think it's awfully presumptuous that any snippet that you write is so
unique that it could be NOT considered part of the public domain and could have
a copyright applied...

All this talk about hobby code, unless it applies to an application,
independent in its' own right, and applicable to a specific task, or at very
least a group of tasks, is much ado about nothing..

And definitely not On Topic here...

[Keith Thompson]

Post by MikeB

Post by Keith Thompson
My understanding is that any written work is automatically copyrighted
as soon as it's set down in tangible form. I'm not sure what, if any,
additional legal protection is added by using a copyright header.

I think it's awfully presumptuous that any snippet that you write
is so unique that it could be NOT considered part of the public
domain and could have a copyright applied...

I believe the term "public domain" has a specific legal meaning.
I won't discuss it further here.

Post by MikeB
All this talk about hobby code, unless it applies to an application,
independent in its' own right, and applicable to a specific task, or
at very least a group of tasks, is much ado about nothing..

I suppose it might depend on what you mean by "hobby code". Some
hobby code can be quite large, and copyright law can definitely apply
to it.

Post by MikeB
And definitely not On Topic here...

Agreed.

I've redirected followups to /dev/null. If you insist on posting a
followup, you can post to these same newsgroups, but please don't.

[E. Robert Tisdale]

Post by MikeB
And definitely not On Topic here...

It is topical only to the extent that
every source file should include a copyright notice
including the date and the name of the copyright owner.
If you are unsure about who the copyright belongs,
you (the author) should claim it for yourself.
You can always transfer copyright ownership
to the rightful owner later.

[Scott Ellsworth]

Post by E. Robert Tisdale
Your employer cannot compel you to transfer the copyright
for code that you wrote on your own time
or code that you wrote for another employer.

Slight correction: as I understand it (IANAL, but I did talk to one
about this), most of us work under "work for hire" contracts. Thus,
everything we do on company time or with company materials is a work for
hire, and implicitly copyrighted by them. The "company materials" is
the kicker - if you use one of their machines, or a compiler they paid
for, or _any_ company materials to create your code, you could end up
being judged as having done a work for hire.

In the case of the original poster, he did work prior to joining his
prospective employeer. Thus far, so good.

As soon as he uses it in a work project, or develops on it with their
resources or on their time, it may have become a work for hire.
Further, if it gets ugly, and you get hauled into court, then it really
hurts if they have proof that you did things that might have turned it
into a work for hire.

Remember, once it has become theirs, they potentially can go after
others using the code for copyright violation, including you. Most will
not, but the recent SCO suits have shown that it _can_ happen.

There is a simple solution - most contracts I have signed as an employee
have a section where I am to list products, patents, or software
developed on my own where there might be a potential conflict. Use
those sections - describe in appropriately vague terms what you have
done, and file for copyright. (I know that you do not have to, but
having done so will make it much easier if it ever does get to court.)

Post by E. Robert Tisdale
My experience is that employers have no objection
to using third party packages or even freeware
if they can get the necessary licenses at a reasonable price.

This has been my experience as well. Coughing up a few hundred for a
third party product, even one which I wrote, is often not a problem, as
long as they get the source, and the license is such that they get to
keep that source and all modifications to it.

Post by E. Robert Tisdale
Don't try to *sell* your employer a license
as this creates a "conflict of interest".

I have had this work, but only when I was selling them a block of code
already on the market, and where it was clear that they would own it
once paying the price. You are opening yourself up for questions, so I
am not sure I would do this under most circumstances.

Post by E. Robert Tisdale
You can distribute your code under an open source license
and you should try to convince your employer
to allow you to "contribute" to the package
which would allow you to maintain your software on company time.

This has happened to me several times, and it has worked well. Watch
your license terms carefully, as they may get a bit excited if your
library ends up GPLing their product.

Scott

[Thomas Matthews]

Post by Skybuck Flying
Ok,
Suppose you have programmed a lot of "re-useable" source code.
Suppose you're considering taking a programming job in the same language as
your hobby programming language.
1. Do you use your hobby source code in your job ?

Not unless you gain some benefit from the company.

Post by Skybuck Flying
This could create problems ?!?

Yes, especially under trade secrets, patents, copyrights and ownership.
Many employers have a standard of "whatever is created at their
facilities or using their equipment is theirs." Some may extend
the scope to include any software written by their employees. Read
and understand the employment contract carefully before using any
personal software for your employer.

Post by Skybuck Flying
2. For example without thinking about it you might loose the rights to your
hobby source code.

That is possible. Read the employment contract. Ask your manager
about the legalities of using personal code in their projects.

Post by Skybuck Flying
So what would you do ?
1. Don't even take a job in the same programming language as your hobby.

No. You can have a hobby that uses the same programming language as
your profession. Just make sure that there is a clean definition
and separation between your hobby and profession.

Post by Skybuck Flying
2. Don't even use your hobby source code.

That is safe. However, there may be some middle ground. Talk to
the project manager or company lawyers.

Post by Skybuck Flying
3. In case you do use it, give the company a license to use your compiled
source, they probably won't like that.

They may as long as they reap some benefit from it.
Again, ask the employer.

Post by Skybuck Flying
4. Give the company a license to use your source code.
5. "Open Source" your code... like gnu license.
6. Make your source code freeware.
Again I ask... which alternative would you use... is there another
alternative ?
In short what would you do ?

I would talk to my manager, and consult a lawyer.

Post by Skybuck Flying
Bye,
Skybuck.

--
Thomas Matthews

C++ newsgroup welcome message:
http://www.slack.net/~shiva/welcome.txt
C++ Faq: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite
C Faq: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/c-faq/top.html
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ faq:
http://www.comeaucomputing.com/learn/faq/
Other sites:
http://www.josuttis.com -- C++ STL Library book
http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl -- Standard Template Library

[Nobody]

Some responses make good points, but I have PERSONAL experience with this. I
am a Windows developer and over the years have compiled a GUI library with a
lot of custom controls. Now keep in mind we are talking HOBBY code and not
code that I intend to sell because if there is money involved, chances are
it will get ugly.

Now my GUI library... I have worked on it during college (when I was not
working for anyone), and at several jobs... either job related or to kill
time or both.

Post by Skybuck Flying
Ok,
Suppose you have programmed a lot of "re-useable" source code.
Suppose you're considering taking a programming job in the same language as
your hobby programming language.
1. Do you use your hobby source code in your job ?

Yes. If I need a specific control that I already have in my library, I have
no intention of re-writing it. That would be f!#$ken stupid and a waste of
my time. I could copy and past just the parts that I need, but my library is
too interwoven for that.

Post by Skybuck Flying
This could create problems ?!?

It can only cause you problems if you start to rock the boat...

Post by Skybuck Flying
2. For example without thinking about it you might loose the rights to your
hobby source code.

I have worked on it at 3 jobs now... sometimes enhancing it for the company,
sometimes goofing off. Technically 3 companies now own the code because I
worked on it at work. Do any of the companies know that I have used code
from previous jobs or am using "their" code commercially in other products?
Nope... Don't rock the boat as I said... no one is going to go around
comparing which DLLs a product installs. The fact that two of the companies
are now pretty much dead helps me, but if I switch jobs, I would probably
continue to take the source code around with me.

Post by Skybuck Flying
So what would you do ?
1. Don't even take a job in the same programming language as your hobby.

Thats dumb.. my hobby language is C++ as is my job. I'm not gonna learn
another language.

Post by Skybuck Flying
2. Don't even use your hobby source code.

As I said above... waste of my time/life if I don't. I'm not gonna re-invent
the wheel.

Post by Skybuck Flying
3. In case you do use it, give the company a license to use your compiled
source, they probably won't like that.

Now they won't. The first company I used this code for, I tried talking to
my manager about licensing/ownership and he got all huffy about it saying he
"knew I worked on it while goofing off" so technically they owned it...
whatever... now they own a COPY of it. Most companies have a clause in the
contract saying if you work on it at work, they own it and trying to talk to
them about it will typically put you under the spot light.

Post by Skybuck Flying
4. Give the company a license to use your source code.

Again, no company will "license" or "buy" your code.. suggesting this will
have the managers asking you why you aren't a team player or doing something
good for the company.

Post by Skybuck Flying
5. "Open Source" your code... like gnu license.
6. Make your source code freeware.

I wasn't really concerned about money, etc. I was just concerned about
maintaining ownership of the code. The first company didn't even like that
idea.

Post by Skybuck Flying
Again I ask... which alternative would you use... is there another
alternative ?
In short what would you do ?

BOTTOM LINE....

If you don't intend to sell it, just shut up and use it. Asking the
company/manager about it will just put you under the spot light. Is this
good LEGAL advice? Probably not. Is this good REAL WORLD advice.. Probably
YES.

A company will tell you: 1) either give it to us fully, or 2) don't use it
here and there wont be a problem.

Either response is not good in my book and they know it...

So just shut up and quietly use it.

Now my situation may also be different since my GUI library is "general".
Ie.. I am not working for a GUI library company. Just writing an application
using my GUI library.

Now can any of the 3 companies sue/fire me? Well, yeah, they probably could.
I have a house and a BMW and cash in the bank, so I have assets. Am I
worried that one of the companies would sue me/fire me? Hell no. Like I
said, I shut up. I don't go around telling people that this is code I wrote
outside of work, and GUIs suffeciently change over time where even though
the underlying code is the same, it looks different enough.

But if they did a file/source compare, well, then its obviously the same
code.

Don't rock the boat.... just keep a don't ask/don't tell policy.

[Maarten Wiltink]

"Nobody" <***@cox.net> wrote in message news:xdbsd.188014$***@fed1read03...
[...]

Post by Nobody

Post by Skybuck Flying
1. Do you use your hobby source code in your job ?

Yes. If I need a specific control that I already have in my library,
I have no intention of re-writing it. That would be f!#$ken stupid
and a waste of my time. I could copy and past just the parts that I
need, but my library is too interwoven for that.

The biggest waste is that of company money. They are, after all, paying
for my time. If done work redone is what they want, they can have it
for all I care.

Post by Nobody

Post by Skybuck Flying
This could create problems ?!?

It can only cause you problems if you start to rock the boat...
<and more along this line>

This is a pragmatist's viewpoint. An extreme pragmatist. Not everything
you will probably get away with is ethical.

A company hiring a programmer is inherently buying access to
_knowledge_. As a programmer myself, I see little enough difference
between what's in my head and what's on my (home) harddisk. They can
have the use, but not the ownership, of both.

I have been careful in my last four jobs to have in my contract that
anything done on my own time that is not directly related to however
the company makes its money, is none of their business. If I write a
game on my own time, it's mine. If I have a good idea how to solve a
work problem, of course it's theirs. If it makes them _really_ big
money, they would of course do well to acknowlege it and motivate me
to have more ideas like that.

Groetjes,
Maarten Wiltink

[Nobody]

Post by Maarten Wiltink
[...]

Post by Nobody

Post by Skybuck Flying
1. Do you use your hobby source code in your job ?

Yes. If I need a specific control that I already have in my library,
I have no intention of re-writing it. That would be f!#$ken stupid
and a waste of my time. I could copy and past just the parts that I
need, but my library is too interwoven for that.

The biggest waste is that of company money. They are, after all, paying
for my time. If done work redone is what they want, they can have it
for all I care.

You might not care about re-writing stuff, but I do. In my case GUI controls
are often tedious to write. Tedious twice is boring.

Post by Maarten Wiltink

Post by Nobody

Post by Skybuck Flying
This could create problems ?!?

It can only cause you problems if you start to rock the boat...
<and more along this line>

This is a pragmatist's viewpoint. An extreme pragmatist. Not everything
you will probably get away with is ethical.

Well, I guess thats where we differ :). I have worked for enough lousy
companies (and one decent one) where the sleazy world of "company ethics"
has been revealed. Companies are INHERENTLY unethical. They are scum (p.s.,
I am 29 and have been programming professionally for 9yrs). Think about it.
The average salaried Sr. Software Engineer will get about $90k to $120k per
year in the US. How much will your manager make? probably quite a bit more
in base + bonuses + stock options -- for doing quite a bit less (shooting
the shit in meetings all day). At the average company, the average manager
could make 2 to 3 times the money after its all said and done for doing
almost nothing except project schedules. How about more Sr. managers? well,
by the time you get higher up in the company, people are making 10 times or
more what you make, again, for doing very little.

Sorry, but why should I work my ass off to make them rich? you call it
unethical, I call it realistic. If a manager is making $500k a year and I am
making $90k to $120k, thats not fair. Yes thats how business works, and
thats why I really don't give a shit. I don't go out of my way to help the
company.

And in case you are wondering... my company loves me, but do they show it
with money or other compensation? hell no. If my manager is making $500k a
year base, "fair" is me making over $300k to $400k, if not more. After all,
the manager is making money off MY work. As is the company.

The amount of stock options is equally out of wack.

That was slightly off topic, but was to make my point. I could really not
give a shit about ethics or the company. If I am not making any money off my
work, I'm just a salaried employee, so I am not going to go out of my way
to do extra or put in long hours, etc.

And as I said before, I hide my opinion around most people, and my company
loves me, but I could really not give a shit about helping them since I know
I'm not being compensated fairly.

Yes I am bitter :)

Post by Maarten Wiltink
A company hiring a programmer is inherently buying access to
_knowledge_. As a programmer myself, I see little enough difference
between what's in my head and what's on my (home) harddisk. They can
have the use, but not the ownership, of both.
I have been careful in my last four jobs to have in my contract that
anything done on my own time that is not directly related to however
the company makes its money, is none of their business. If I write a
game on my own time, it's mine. If I have a good idea how to solve a
work problem, of course it's theirs. If it makes them _really_ big
money, they would of course do well to acknowlege it and motivate me
to have more ideas like that.
Groetjes,
Maarten Wiltink

Well, here in the US, companies are pretty much in charge. Often, if you
rock the boat by asking for stuff in contracts they'll just get someone else
who rolls over.

[Jim P]

Post by Nobody

Post by Maarten Wiltink
[...]

Post by Nobody

Post by Skybuck Flying
1. Do you use your hobby source code in your job ?

Yes. If I need a specific control that I already have in my library,
I have no intention of re-writing it. That would be f!#$ken stupid
and a waste of my time. I could copy and past just the parts that I
need, but my library is too interwoven for that.

The biggest waste is that of company money. They are, after all, paying
for my time. If done work redone is what they want, they can have it
for all I care.

You might not care about re-writing stuff, but I do. In my case GUI controls
are often tedious to write. Tedious twice is boring.

Post by Maarten Wiltink

Post by Nobody

Post by Skybuck Flying
This could create problems ?!?

It can only cause you problems if you start to rock the boat...
<and more along this line>

This is a pragmatist's viewpoint. An extreme pragmatist. Not everything
you will probably get away with is ethical.

Well, I guess thats where we differ :). I have worked for enough lousy
companies (and one decent one) where the sleazy world of "company ethics"
has been revealed. Companies are INHERENTLY unethical. They are scum (p.s.,
I am 29 and have been programming professionally for 9yrs). Think about it.
The average salaried Sr. Software Engineer will get about $90k to $120k per
year in the US. How much will your manager make? probably quite a bit more
in base + bonuses + stock options -- for doing quite a bit less (shooting
the shit in meetings all day). At the average company, the average manager
could make 2 to 3 times the money after its all said and done for doing
almost nothing except project schedules. How about more Sr. managers? well,
by the time you get higher up in the company, people are making 10 times or
more what you make, again, for doing very little.
Sorry, but why should I work my ass off to make them rich? you call it
unethical, I call it realistic. If a manager is making $500k a year and I am
making $90k to $120k, thats not fair. Yes thats how business works, and
thats why I really don't give a shit. I don't go out of my way to help the
company.
And in case you are wondering... my company loves me, but do they show it
with money or other compensation? hell no. If my manager is making $500k a
year base, "fair" is me making over $300k to $400k, if not more. After all,
the manager is making money off MY work. As is the company.
The amount of stock options is equally out of wack.
That was slightly off topic, but was to make my point. I could really not
give a shit about ethics or the company. If I am not making any money off my
work, I'm just a salaried employee, so I am not going to go out of my way
to do extra or put in long hours, etc.
And as I said before, I hide my opinion around most people, and my company
loves me, but I could really not give a shit about helping them since I know
I'm not being compensated fairly.
Yes I am bitter :)

Post by Maarten Wiltink
A company hiring a programmer is inherently buying access to
_knowledge_. As a programmer myself, I see little enough difference
between what's in my head and what's on my (home) harddisk. They can
have the use, but not the ownership, of both.
I have been careful in my last four jobs to have in my contract that
anything done on my own time that is not directly related to however
the company makes its money, is none of their business. If I write a
game on my own time, it's mine. If I have a good idea how to solve a
work problem, of course it's theirs. If it makes them _really_ big
money, they would of course do well to acknowlege it and motivate me
to have more ideas like that.
Groetjes,
Maarten Wiltink

Well, here in the US, companies are pretty much in charge. Often, if you
rock the boat by asking for stuff in contracts they'll just get someone else
wh

So you sit at your desk programming and full of anger at the same time.

Time to understand life - I have designed products that have given the
companies that I work for Patents, Sold Millions of dollars of product
because of my innovative ideas. But that is what I am hired for.
o rolls over.
Remind me to not hire you.

That kind of attitude is a killer and eats at the insides of a person.

and will show in any conversations about rights and ideas. So you
limits yourself and value to the company. Even while getting a good
wage. and lots of people are interested in your job.
and that attitude like this will keep you from advancing and making the
money that you are assuming they are making.

And guess what, You boss is not making that kind of money - in your
anger you are making guesses about his income and stock options and lots
of assumptions.

You are only one part of the company and a small part of it.

Jim P.

[Nobody]

Post by Jim P

Post by Nobody

Post by Maarten Wiltink
[...]

Post by Nobody

Post by Skybuck Flying
1. Do you use your hobby source code in your job ?

Yes. If I need a specific control that I already have in my library,
I have no intention of re-writing it. That would be f!#$ken stupid
and a waste of my time. I could copy and past just the parts that I
need, but my library is too interwoven for that.

The biggest waste is that of company money. They are, after all, paying
for my time. If done work redone is what they want, they can have it
for all I care.

You might not care about re-writing stuff, but I do. In my case GUI
controls are often tedious to write. Tedious twice is boring.

Post by Maarten Wiltink

Post by Nobody

Post by Skybuck Flying
This could create problems ?!?

It can only cause you problems if you start to rock the boat...
<and more along this line>

This is a pragmatist's viewpoint. An extreme pragmatist. Not everything
you will probably get away with is ethical.

Well, I guess thats where we differ :). I have worked for enough lousy
companies (and one decent one) where the sleazy world of "company ethics"
has been revealed. Companies are INHERENTLY unethical. They are scum
(p.s., I am 29 and have been programming professionally for 9yrs). Think
about it. The average salaried Sr. Software Engineer will get about $90k
to $120k per year in the US. How much will your manager make? probably
quite a bit more in base + bonuses + stock options -- for doing quite a
bit less (shooting the shit in meetings all day). At the average company,
the average manager could make 2 to 3 times the money after its all said
and done for doing almost nothing except project schedules. How about
more Sr. managers? well, by the time you get higher up in the company,
people are making 10 times or more what you make, again, for doing very
little.
Sorry, but why should I work my ass off to make them rich? you call it
unethical, I call it realistic. If a manager is making $500k a year and I
am making $90k to $120k, thats not fair. Yes thats how business works,
and thats why I really don't give a shit. I don't go out of my way to
help the company.
And in case you are wondering... my company loves me, but do they show it
with money or other compensation? hell no. If my manager is making $500k
a year base, "fair" is me making over $300k to $400k, if not more. After
all, the manager is making money off MY work. As is the company.
The amount of stock options is equally out of wack.
That was slightly off topic, but was to make my point. I could really not
give a shit about ethics or the company. If I am not making any money off
my work, I'm just a salaried employee, so I am not going to go out of my
way to do extra or put in long hours, etc.
And as I said before, I hide my opinion around most people, and my
company loves me, but I could really not give a shit about helping them
since I know I'm not being compensated fairly.
Yes I am bitter :)

Post by Maarten Wiltink
A company hiring a programmer is inherently buying access to
_knowledge_. As a programmer myself, I see little enough difference
between what's in my head and what's on my (home) harddisk. They can
have the use, but not the ownership, of both.
I have been careful in my last four jobs to have in my contract that
anything done on my own time that is not directly related to however
the company makes its money, is none of their business. If I write a
game on my own time, it's mine. If I have a good idea how to solve a
work problem, of course it's theirs. If it makes them _really_ big
money, they would of course do well to acknowlege it and motivate me
to have more ideas like that.
Groetjes,
Maarten Wiltink

Well, here in the US, companies are pretty much in charge. Often, if you
rock the boat by asking for stuff in contracts they'll just get someone
else wh

So you sit at your desk programming and full of anger at the same time.
Time to understand life - I have designed products that have given the
companies that I work for Patents, Sold Millions of dollars of product
because of my innovative ideas. But that is what I am hired for.
o rolls over.

I am not "full of anger". If I was "full of anger" all the time, I would
probably be dead from a heart attack or something. Not going out of my way
and being full of anger are two different things. As I said, I understand
this is how companies work. All they care about is making management rich.
See Enron, see the recent articles about Electronic Arts, see just about
every other company.

Post by Jim P
Remind me to not hire you.

I wouldn't want to work for you if you expect my life to revolve around the
company while getting nothing in return. As I said, I don't consider a few
thousand in stock options compensation when managers make millions.

Post by Jim P
That kind of attitude is a killer and eats at the insides of a person.
and will show in any conversations about rights and ideas. So you limits
yourself and value to the company. Even while getting a good wage. and
lots of people are interested in your job.
and that attitude like this will keep you from advancing and making the
money that you are assuming they are making.
And guess what, You boss is not making that kind of money - in your anger
you are making guesses about his income and stock options and lots of
assumptions.
You are only one part of the company and a small part of it.
Jim P.

As I said, I mostly keep my opinions to myself, close friends and I have
talked about it, and lots of them feel the same way. I have even had
managers tell me to my face "the company is here to take advantage of you"
and that they do.

Oh my bosses ARE making that kind of money. Otherwise explain to me how *3*
managers just recently purchased multi-million dollar homes in exclusive
beach front cities? Explain to me how they all drive Land Rovers, Porche
911s? Explain to me how one built a 60k home theater in his 5000 sq ft
house? Explain to me how one is having a yacht built? You don't do that kind
of stuff on a 90k to 120k salary.

[Martin Harvey (Demon account)]

Post by Jim P
You are only one part of the company and a small part of it.

This is true, but the previous poster does have a point. People's
remuneration is *not* linked to how much they contribute to the
company. It's just like any good old "dominance" social heirarchy -
because actual contribution and value is downright impossible to
quantify, you end up having a career ladder & pay scales, and all of a
sudden they right conditions exist for something like the Peter
principle to apply.

He has another point which is that you are always paid less than you
are really worth. Why? Because if everyone was paid what their
contribution is really worth, the company would never make a profit.
It's that simple.

Anyway, ditching all the rhetoric, it boils down to this:

There is a tradeoff. The tradeoff is *risk*. You may say that your
employer is screwing you, but, the assumption is that a decent sized
organisation is less likely to have to ditch you than you are to make
a hash of your own start up. Not only that, but if things go belly up,
in a big company, you're not likely to be personally liable for
losses.

Now, the reason the people at the top get paid loads is that
(ostensibly!) they're meant to have the market and financial judgement
to be able to chart a course for the company that keeps the numbers in
the black and the employees employed and paid - and here's the point:
if they *do* do that, then they're *worth* the (comparitively) large
salaries they're paid.

What really annoys me is when they screw it up or show obvious signs
of having *no clue*, and *still* get paid that much.

Anyways - practical advice: If you don't like being an "underpaid
minion", then start up your own company, and see what the other side
of the coin is like. Oh yeah, and be prepared to work 100 hour weeks
for the next 4-5 years.

MH.

[Jim P]

Post by Martin Harvey (Demon account)

Post by Jim P
You are only one part of the company and a small part of it.

This is true, but the previous poster does have a point. People's
remuneration is *not* linked to how much they contribute to the
company. It's just like any good old "dominance" social heirarchy -
because actual contribution and value is downright impossible to
quantify, you end up having a career ladder & pay scales, and all of a
sudden they right conditions exist for something like the Peter
principle to apply.
He has another point which is that you are always paid less than you
are really worth. Why? Because if everyone was paid what their
contribution is really worth, the company would never make a profit.
It's that simple.
There is a tradeoff. The tradeoff is *risk*. You may say that your
employer is screwing you, but, the assumption is that a decent sized
organisation is less likely to have to ditch you than you are to make
a hash of your own start up. Not only that, but if things go belly up,
in a big company, you're not likely to be personally liable for
losses.
Now, the reason the people at the top get paid loads is that
(ostensibly!) they're meant to have the market and financial judgement
to be able to chart a course for the company that keeps the numbers in
if they *do* do that, then they're *worth* the (comparitively) large
salaries they're paid.
What really annoys me is when they screw it up or show obvious signs
of having *no clue*, and *still* get paid that much.
Anyways - practical advice: If you don't like being an "underpaid
minion", then start up your own company, and see what the other side
of the coin is like. Oh yeah, and be prepared to work 100 hour weeks
for the next 4-5 years.
MH.

I like that concept of 100 hours a week for the next 4 to 5 years. That
is part of what the manager does. My dad owned his own business. and he
would spend a lot of time simply thinking. and not all of during the
work hours. - - - Believe me the good manager is thinking about cause
and effect, schedules and that - - and not just 8 to 5.

and the legal wording seems good and is what it should be. It has to be
clearly done not on company time and not with company tools. and not
something that relates to company business - - and that means that the
compiler you used, at home - - is it your copy or one from work? But
most will not go to that point. - - - but that is a tool.

I also would not hide this from the boss or make an issue of it with the
boss. To me an employee that has enough on the ball to be thinking and
pondering other things besides work. - - is a good employee. I talked
with an out of work engineer last spring. Asked him a couple of
questions and decided that I would not hire the person. Only what he
learned at school was he using. Asked about an other langauge such as VB
and said he took C in school. As if you have to go to school to learn a
langauge. And VB is easy to learn. This said a lot about the type of
person and what his interest level is - - does he think of the job as 8
- 5 only or will he be pondering problems and issues after work also. Or
does he totally turn off at 5. This is my job only. I person that is
doing extra on his own time - for his hobby and other interest. That is
a person that is of more interest to me as a programmer or engineer.

Jim P.

[Maarten Wiltink]

Post by Jim P
I like that concept of 100 hours a week for the next 4 to 5 years. That
is part of what the manager does. My dad owned his own business. and he
would spend a lot of time simply thinking. and not all of during the
work hours. - - - Believe me the good manager is thinking about cause
and effect, schedules and that - - and not just 8 to 5.

Hey, I do that. Are you calling me a manager? Them's fighting words.

(No, I don't have my own business.)

Groetjes,
Maarten Wiltink

[Jim P]

Post by Maarten Wiltink

Post by Jim P
I like that concept of 100 hours a week for the next 4 to 5 years. That
is part of what the manager does. My dad owned his own business. and he
would spend a lot of time simply thinking. and not all of during the
work hours. - - - Believe me the good manager is thinking about cause
and effect, schedules and that - - and not just 8 to 5.

Hey, I do that. Are you calling me a manager? Them's fighting words.
(No, I don't have my own business.)
Groetjes,
Maarten Wiltink

and that is why you are a good programmer. You live this stuff.
and 8 to 5 guy - turns it off as he leaves work.

Jim P.

[Siemel Naran]

Post by Nobody
Sorry, but why should I work my ass off to make them rich? you call it
unethical, I call it realistic. If a manager is making $500k a year and I am
making $90k to $120k, thats not fair. Yes thats how business works, and
thats why I really don't give a shit. I don't go out of my way to help the
company.

A comment on the numbers. You can download SalaryExpert. In San Francisco,

SOFTWARE DESIGN MANAGER: Low Salary = $89,924, Average = $105,013, High =
$147,764, Bonus = 11.24%, Benefits=12.6%.

SOFTWARE DESIGN DIRECTOR: Low Salary = $106,177, Average = $159,545, High =
$363,634, Bonus = 16.75%, Benefits = 12.4%.

SOFTWARE ENGINEER: Low Salary = $67,669, Average = $85,440, High = $102,357,
Bonus = 0%, Benefits = 12.5%.

SOFTWARE DEVELOPER: Low Salary = $63,843, Average = $76,158, High = $99,303,
Bonus = 10.63% , Benefits = 12.0%.

The national averages are lower as San Francisco has such a high cost of
living.

[J French]

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 20:47:52 +0100, "Skybuck Flying"

Post by Skybuck Flying
Ok,
Suppose you have programmed a lot of "re-useable" source code.
Suppose you're considering taking a programming job in the same language as
your hobby programming language.
1. Do you use your hobby source code in your job ?

My view is that what you 'take in' to a company is both yours and
theirs
- you have prior ownership, but by using it in production code you are
implicitly giving the right to use the code to the company.

What you do while working for the company is more difficult.
One can easily spend thinking time at work
- and run up the code at home

Mostly companies are worried about 'non compete' agreements
- there are few things more irritating than seeing an ex-employee move
to another company (or set up their own) in direct competition.

Regarding code copyright, it is similar to some advice I once heard
about Insider Trading - 'That is what mothers in law are for'

'Taking In' a mature product is a totally different thing

[andthen]

Nevermind, found the problem. There was one line that I took out before
posting the code that I didn't realize was creating a thread that keeps
running.