Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Steven Champeon <schampeo AT hesketh.com>]

on Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 11:12:41AM -0700, Joe Komenda wrote:
> I do have a question though - I've worked in a few companies where all of
> your work, and anything you create while in their employ, belongs to the
> company. In essence, if I made an application while working there, they own
> the copyright, not me. Does open source mean that I can use the code I
> write, even if I don't work there anymore? Obviously I'm not entitled to use
> a complete tool that wasn't publicly released, but if I write a nifty
> function that is part of that tool, could I re-use that elsewhere? What
> about HTML? How much code do I have to string together before my employer
> can claim ownership?

IANAL, but in my experience, all programmers keep a toolbox of their
best code and use it regardless of copyright restrictions, on the
assumption that copyright does not apply to algorithms, and that, by
extension, the pure expression of an algorithm in code may be re-used
anywhere. Suffice it to say that there are lots of gray areas, and
that to my knowledge, few of them have been adequately tested in court.

However, it all depends on the nature and terms of the contract you
signed when you began work. I do not believe that the use of already
copyrighted code (such as that released under the GPL or similar
licenses) in an environment where such code as you create becomes
copyrighted by your company could automatically infect the existing
code. However, if the company is enlightened at all, they will likely
do one of two things:

 - allow you to release your enhancements to the existing code, with
   their name on the copyright statement

 - turn over rights to such code (perhaps out of fear that with ownership
   of publicly available code comes a responsibility for maintenance or
   a liability for its use, despite the clear statement of no guarantees
   that comes with the GPL, "merchantability, fitness of purpose, etc.")

Of course, if you enhance previously copyrighted (and GPLd) code, they
have no claims on the existing code, but they may have claims on your
enhancements. At that point, it's a matter of figuring out how to
manage the enhancements. Some people just ignore their company's
claims when it comes to bugfixes - I know I have - out of a realistic
assessment of the situation. Does my company want to spend a few
hundred bucks on lawyers for a copyright statement on source that had
an off-by-one error in it when I received it? I doubt it.

I've never worked for a company that wasn't enlightened in one of
these two ways, so I can't really say what the alternatives are. I
suspect they all involve lawyers and other unpleasant facts of life
in a large organization. :/ (just kidding, Thomas)

Steve

-- 
"Euphoria is not a business strategy" -- Louis Rossetto