Do you agree to this rule given by my company ?

"Employees are not allowed to create any sort of library for any language after or during working hours, whether for personal or company projects. As they might somehow expose companies code to the open-source world."

Personally, I created quite much (not that much) of library , I created for fun, today I was told to delete ALL , so those who use my package , Im sorry :(

@RocketSurgeon Here's the thing my compny hired a few people to inspect whether those library are done by our employees.

yeap I know this is fucked up.

Wait... You can't make *internal* libraries? As in DRY? You have to repeat yourself? WHAT?

So when are you planning to resign?

@atheist Not allowed.

@electrineer Well ... I am getting tired to resign and get a new job tho. I begin to realise there's no way to escape from stupid people .

So, (I'm not a lawyer) legally that seems like a bit of a stretch. That said, at amazon in theory you needed to get permission from the "open source" team or something, that had a (very short) blacklist of licence types (these were questionable licenses) and projects with iffy reputations. It was fairly reasonable. They were also fairly reasonable in that you could work on personal projects in your own time as long as it was reasonably distinct from your day job.

What you're quoting sounds like bullshit.

@johnmelodyme if you can't beat them, join them, I guess 🤷‍♂️

@electrineer can i stand on neutral ground?

IBM use to do this years ago; control all the code you write after work. It is bullshit. I wouldn't sign that work contract. If you already singed on the job and found that, I'd bring it up. You shouldn't be bound by it.

I work on too many open source projects. This is company overreach .. and we wonder why so many people are okay with forced medical mandates.

What you do in your free time is not the companies matter

If its *your* code, that you wrote in your personal time, which doesn't contain any code from the company, they have no say in it whatsoever.

If the company doesn't want to use the open source lib you created then it's on them not you.

Merely asking that of employees sounds super illegal, it most certainly is here in Germany.

Our previous administration tried something similar. Basically any code written was property of the company because you gained the knowledge to write the code from resources paid for by the company.

As you can guess, it was un-enforceable and everyone except his 'goon squad' thought it was a joke. For a short time, he had his team walk around the office, looking/watching for devs using a USB stick/thumb-drive. When the idiocy got back to him (ex. "They figured out how to use the internet...WHAT DO WE DO?!!)", he wanted the Networking department to 'hack' https so he could be alerted when someone uploaded files to, for example, Google drive.

That's a stupid contract. You should not be their slave after work hours.

@iiii Now I cant literally cant contribute to open source anymore :(

I'm sorry elixir, flutter, npm community. :(

2 hours ago I created a courier servie by scrapping the web data from courier website and return data, so that those who use my package can easily get the tracking status, instead of asking api from courier company .

But my company found out I was doing that, and new rules are set.

@johnmelodyme what rules?

@iiii that all employees are not allow to contribute open source project.

you're not allowed to code in your free time, for fun? that's a BIG red flag.

and a tech company not actually _promoting_ people improving code that could benefit themselves? another HUGE red flag.

my guess: they do not have any code that's even worth glancing at.

also: they can't force you to delete anything. especially stuff you did before the rule was made.

@tosensei well I am forced tho, can't rename it either.

@johnmelodyme fuck them, I guess.

@iiii I feel like I will do it anyway... I love to improve open source projects.

I hope they will not found out , since I will be using a fake name.

@johnmelodyme when in doubt, just say: that's not code. that's poetry. artistic license and stuff.

@tosensei Om.......this is interesting.

So, couple of things that are worth mentioning based on comments.

If the company has changed policy without your consultation, it's entirely likely the change is unenforceable. If you have free employment advice in your area, ask (ACAS in the UK).

But (bad news), at least under UK law, if you're in your spare time that doesn't automatically mean what you're doing is your own. Personally, I think this is at least justifiable. Let me explain. For example, if your day job were designing a car, and in your own time you "designed a car" that was significantly better than what you were designing at work, this would be ethically dubious as it suggests you were holding back ideas on a work project for your personal use. This is similar for software engineering too. (eg creating a competing product)

Further, if you're using work resources, such as a work laptop or cloud, there's a reasonable chance this would fall under work ownership because they've provided you the resources "necessary". Don't use work resources for personal projects, unless your work has a very clear policy on the matter.

If you've signed a contract, demonstrating that terms are un enforceable falls on you and may be costly. Something like demonstrating they changed terms without your approval, is easier.

Making closed-source libraries during working time for strictly internal company use is forbidden? That's outright dumb.

Forbidding open source projects during working time? That's OK.

Forbidding open or closed source projects in your free time that basically compete with what you are doing at work? That's OK.

Forbidding open or closed source projects in your free time that don't compete with your work? I don't think they can enforce that, and even trying to impose that rule is reason enough to look out for another company.

Not least because having OSS projects can be a factor in getting a new job, so they're also trying to keep you in a pretty shady way.

It's a sloppy overly "catch all" rule.

Should be "employees must not write software that competes with us"

What kind of company is it?
Are you building state of the art algorithms like some complex image recognition software - then it might make sense.

But if you're just a Web dev it's ridiculous.

Welcome to the
#allYourCodeBelongToUs
club.

Based on what your saying, this is a shit contract. I have a non compete and all code/ideas/inventions/patents or any thing else for that matter that is derived from company knowledge or resources are forfeit to them.

Think Silicon Valley (tv show)

Now, if you read between the lines, I can work on side projects that have no significance to the company that I do not use company resources or knowledge to do so and it's not done in company time.

But a full out waiver of everything you do on or off the clock is balls deep insane.

Why would you sign this in the first place?

Well, technically, your code is your property. If your company wants you to delete, and you don't wanna resign. Give your repositories links to us so we can fork it and they can't make us delete them. Because now, it is a shared property and we all need to agree to the deletion

@ChristoPy wow good idea...

@rutee07 this rules only come after I got employed tho. In the contract didn't mention this. This is a newly added rules

What if you release it on gitlab or somewhere else they wouldn't suspect?

@Tonnoman I did

Screw them, if you write code that prints hello world, are they still going to sue your ass? They’re the same dumbass Nazis not unlike the dumbass Nazis you worked for, and fuck them! You should be allowed to write whatever you want, as long as you’re not copy pasting systems that are closed source.

@TeachMeCode go idea ! I am going to create a project name hello worl and see what happens.

@ChristoPy No, not necessarily. That is an intuitive idea, but legally it very much depends.

E.g. when you are employed and write code for your employer you own exactly 0% of that code, even though you wrote 100% of it. Which is also one of the reasons why it's often recommended not to get attached to the code you wrote emotionally.

With wavers, such as the one described it depends entirely on the contract and the jurisdiction.

They may enforce any bs on new recruits. But why the actual fuck you are affected??? It looks like a violation par to breach of 1st amendment.

FUCK THEM IN THE BOOTY! It's none of their goddamn business and you'll need a lawyer if you still get harassed. Just tell me you didn't sign under their new inhumane policy?

I just want to know why they would punish him for writing code that has zilch to do with their code! Like say he creates a simple game and he works for an e-commerce place. How would that be exposing their code? That makes no fucking sense

@TeachMeCode it also just hinders someone from improving their skills outside of work, which is just even more confusing tbh

@Lucky-Loek I don't want to start a world war 2 part 2.

After working hours they're not allowed to tell you what to do. Redistributing company code is obviously illegal, but they don't have authority to take preventative action like this.

If your local labour laws are good and you can afford a lawyer or have a strong union, they aren't allowed to fire you over this. If your labour laws are weak or you can't afford a lawyer and don't have a strong union, they can do whatever they want.

@lbfalvy in my country the high court is still not open.

Damn now people have to close their library, what they will do with all the books

@johnmelodyme
Felt like playing devil's advocate here but I'm honestly lost.

What does the company have against purely internal and private libraries?

Don't internal libraries save costs AND are a great way to standardize company code?

Would say that depends. If you work for a indie game studio, not resonable.
If you work for military defense, I would say its even resonable to put a keylogger on your home computer and cameras on your toilet, and enforce the work rules 24/7.

Then there is the whole scale in-betwen.
So what your employer can enforce on your free time, depends entirely on how sensitive your work is.

You can cross it out and send it back and request changes before signing. I had a similar clause in my current role before I got it changed.

Intellectual property I create for unrelated purposes is not owned or governed by the company.

@sebastian Your employer cannot enforce 24/7 work rules or touch your home computer at all. If they're working for the military, it's the state that enforces high security conditions. The difference is that IMO it's not the nature or importance of your work that decides stuff like thiis, but your relation to the one making the rules. If a private employer trusts a single employee with information important enough to warrant such rules that's the employer's fault and still doesn't make these rules acceptable or legal.

Naturally, you may - out of free choice - subject yourself to security measures if you find the project important enough, but since free choice is always uncertain in an employment relationship this is not really an excuse there.

@lbfalvy Here in sweden we have something called proportionality, meaning such rules can be justified but only if they ARE justified.

For example, if you work for a sensitive company, they can prohibit you from working with a competitor or starting up a similiar business like 10 years after you ended employment there. And it would pass the court.

But if you work as a cashier in some random grocery store, and they would try to put such things in the employment contract, it would be invalidated in court - because its not proportional or justified.

Same with IT rules. Logging which websites a cashier visits during break on work computer vould be unjustified. For a cashier only justifiable to log ehat happens with the money in the cash register kind of. Logging which websites visited at home for a guy that does have unfettered access to tousands of credit card numbers - justifiable.

@sebastian "You don't allow me to work elsewhere - then pay me for not working" should be the rule. Else, don't sign the contract.

Also, no, logging the credit card guy's web usage at home is not justified because it's totally pointless. If the system is set up in such a bad way that he could abuse credit card data, that's already wrong, and he could just buy some laptop and use free public wifi anyway.

@lbfalvy Its nothing stranger than they are allowed to check your pockets so you aren't stealing things off the workplace (exit checks).

But its kinda difficult to check a brain so youre not stealing intellectual property or even secret information off the employer.

So based on the nature of the information used in the workplace (and how "easy" it is to carry inside brain, ergo remember) the employer has the right to enforce rules 24/7.

This for 2 reasons.
1 - so you are not by mistake leaking company property.
2 - If you leak, you cannot claim it was a mistake - hey you broke a rule.

Same with "no forklifts here". If you drive a forklift there and cause a accident, you cannot claim it was a mistake.

@sebastian No, the employer does not have that right to 24/7 surveillance because his commercial interests do not outweigh human rights.

@Fast-Nop You can work elsewhere, just not so you compete with your previous employer.
Its because you can carry previous customer's phone numbers in head and "steal" those customers.

Sometimes they even give you "first in line" (bypass queue) to a new workplace which is not a competitor or related work, to cover these 10 years.

@sebastian Monitoring your internet traffic outside work is orders of magnitude more invasive than checking your pockets when you leave work.

@Fast-Nop Of course its not justifiable for commercial interests. The interests must be stronger - like you can put up a camera to prevent crime like theft.

Stealing company data is a crime. Survelliance on a employee to prevent stealing company data is justified.

But as I said, the threshold is very high before you are allowed to poke into employee's free time. You must be a BIG corp, and have justifiable secret information, that the employee have access to.

A little indie game developer will never justify that, even if they have secret data, because their secrets aren't secret enough in a "public interest" scene.

@sebastian With important managers, the usual plot is to basically not terminate their contract, but also not letting them into the company. They are paid for not working at all, including for the competition. Of course, only for a limited time.

That's how you do it if it's so important knowledge. You are paranoid, you pay for it.

@sebastian Big or small corp is irrelevant. The law is the same for both. And no, employee video surveillance without specific hints that something is amiss is outright illegal, and companies have been fined for that shit.

@lbfalvy Of course. But how do you check a brain? Thats the problem.

If the company secrets are so big so its unfeasible to keep them in brain, then you can't justify poking and enforcing rules during free time.

If the secrets are feasible to look at, remember, and then carry out inside a brain, tnen the problem is bigger, and it can be feasible to enforce certain rules during free time - including who you aren't allowed to talk to.
But the rules in itself must be justifiable and feasible too.

@sebastian "including who you aren't allowed to talk to" LOL, yeah sure mate. Maybe in China.

@Fast-Nop In sweden its not irrelevant. The law is the same, but circumstances are different. The law in sweden states under the right circumstances you are allowed to do that.
And for a big corp with a large "public footprint" (Company important for the society), they get certain protections and rights.

In the same way politicans gets lifeguards.

Not who you are allowed to talk to - thats unjustfiable.
But they can state who you are NOT allowed to talk to (ergo blacklisting certain people - if you talk to them you are assumed to have leaked company secrets).

@lbfalvy not to mention that searching everyone's pockets because someone might steal something is way too invasive to begin with. Only law enforcement should be allowed to do that.

@sebastian So in Sweden, your employer can dictate your private life because commercial interests outweigh basic human rights? I find it hard to believe that, and even if Sweden had slid down that far, it still wouldn't uphold at the EU Court.

@Fast-Nop No, but when the public interests of keeping company secrets secret, outweigh a single employee's private life.

Ergo, everyone against you.

We are not talking about "Johnny's manufacturing" now, they would never be allowed to do that, but a big big corp.

@sebastian Big corps have no special rights before the law just because they're big. Being a big corp does not give them the basis to abolish human rights.

Even if Sweden has abolished human rights, they're still in the EU, and that wouldn't uphold. Such contract parts would simply be invalid.

Btw., here a technical solution for paranoid employers that also would happen to be legal:

Allow company resource access only from within the company network, lock down WFH laptops to VPN only without admin rights for employees, don't fit in DVD burners into any computer, lock the cases of desktops along with intrusion alarm, and expoxy glue all USB ports.

Also, either allow only whitelisted internet, or detect file uploads with some threat detection software.

@electrineer I think it's actually fine assuming

1) lockers are provided outside the high security area

2) employees can regularly access those lockers, not just at the end of the workday.

3) employees are actually working with disproportionately high value density objects, like gold bars

The last rule is required because even if 1 and 2 stand, enabling employees to keep their informational privacy, this is still very invasive and you need a good reason to do it.

Remember that laws should only regulate employers to the extent that every single employee has options for good work conditions within their industry and therefore inferior conditions are never a necessity but a tradeoff that the employer would need to compensate for.

Also, as @Fast-Nop said, being a bigger corporation and therefore "more important" cannot grant an employer privileges. If Microsoft wants to keep their risk level comparatively low to a company 1/100 their size, they should give the task to 100 people. It would be less efficient, exactly like 100 separate companies would be less efficient, but safer, exactly like 100 companies would be safer.

Technically, there's nothing stopping a megacorporation from just dividing all their operations into completely separate regional groups that only interact in limited ways and even have their own individual infrastructure design and business strategy. If countries want to keep their infrastructure stable they should enforce redundancy instead of specifically supporting trusting individuals with an absurd amount of responsibility by being lenient on workers' rights.

The correct approach to security is redundancy, everything else should be reserved for situations where redundancy is literally impossible rather than prohibitively expensive.

@tosensei poetic license

Technically speaking, any code you write does in someway or another compete with them, are they saying you should never write code outside work ever

@EpicofGilgamesh yes. Even I should not code nodejs outside work. Because this will conflict with company’s policy.

@johnmelodyme people get the pitchforks