Hacker News Reader

Comment by how_gauche | Hacker News Reader

Hello,

I see the righteous indignation engine is fully spinning up on my behalf. No need: I can take care of myself, thanks. I posted this on the github thread, but:

* Google has a slightly paperwork-heavy process I could have gone through to retain copyright on further contributions to this project

* I chose not to use it in lieu of using a paperwork-free process which involves me assigning copyright to MY contributions under a Google copyright

* I am quite happy with this situation, from a de facto standpoint my day-to-day life is completely unaffected

* because the code is BSD-licensed and it REALLY doesn't matter.

...but if railing against the "man" is making you guys happy, then by all means, continue?

View on HN

because the code is BSD-licensed and it REALLY doesn't matter

But now you can never change the license again, even if an error of wording is discovered in the BSD license. You are stuck forever.

Yes, stuck forever, because there is absolutely no way I could pick up a telephone and have a pleasant conversation with the person responsible for making that decision. He lives in a cold granite tower guarded by dragons and evil wizards. And snakes. Thousands of poisonous snakes.

You might be able to do this for now, but you won't be able to when Oracle buys Google.

Yes, when Oracle buys Google the absolutely bog-standard BSD license text accompanying this open source project will spontaneously transmute into a mystical poem written in ancient Aramaic. This poem, when read backwards, will summon the demon Yog-Sothoth from the depths of Larry Ellison's underpants to remove my right to use the code however I wish provided I retain the copyright message and license text somewhere in the accompanying documentary materials.

Oh wait: no it won't.

No, they'll just claim the software is patented, and that the BSD license doesn't grant anyone a right to use the software.

(Hey, I wish we could live in a world where we could all write software and not worry about copyrights and patents. But that, sadly, is not the world we live in.)

They can do that already now.

Very presumptuous and egotistical to think this is about you. It's not about you, it's about the code that has been contributed which requires a separate line item and which you have contributed which you state is legally owned by someone else.

Given that fully three quarters of the comments I've read can be paraphrased as "isn't it mean for the big bad multinational to steal the poor hacker's code just so he can get a paycheck", over a one-line commit message, it most certainly IS about me.

Maybe not personally -- clearly almost nobody gives a rat's ass about me, or about Haskell code in general for that matter -- but I'm just a little exasperated by being used as a proxy cudgel to wield against my totally reasonable employer, when the people who are sniping from the peanut gallery really have no idea what the legal situation is, what I have or haven't agreed to, whether I have done this voluntarily or under coercion, etc etc.

It is nice that there is some reasonable discussion coming out of this thread about the law and industry practices re: intellectual property vis-a-vis programmers, but for the most part I am pretty disappoint.

Given how many people on HN are in similar situations, but instead trying to start up on the side, it's absolutely relevant to them, and totally not about you.

You previously said that you have to fill out paperwork in order to retain your copyright; that strongly implies that Google can deny your request. I suspect that you wouldn't be so understanding if it were Google claiming ownership of your startup instead.

The question remains: is this due to a law, or a contract that you've signed? What do other developers need to do in order to make sure that they can release their side project software under their own terms, without having to jump through bureaucratic hoops or needing permission from their employer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com