Compression - Seeking legal Advice on Open Source

Author

Seeking legal Advice on Open Source

manish

2005-04-22, 8:55 am

hi,

i am working in the field of Video codecs in a private company. I have
gained exposure to both proprietary codecs and open source codecs
while working on various projects for my company.

Now, if i want to contribute some ideas to open source projects like
XVid (putting some new algorithm or some interesting optimizations in
the public domain), I want to know, am I breaking some confidentiality
rule of the company?

I am sure, this company has typical Non-disclosure Agreement (NDA) and
other such things signed by me. I have not bother to read them and I
am sure even if I read the agreement, I am not going to make out
anything.

Obviously, I do not intend to use company time or resources for this
open source purpose. I plan to re-write the whole thing at home.

Do advise me over the same.

Regards
Manish

Thomas Richter

2005-04-22, 8:55 am

Hi,

> i am working in the field of Video codecs in a private company. I have
> gained exposure to both proprietary codecs and open source codecs
> while working on various projects for my company.

> Now, if i want to contribute some ideas to open source projects like
> XVid (putting some new algorithm or some interesting optimizations in
> the public domain), I want to know, am I breaking some confidentiality
> rule of the company?

> I am sure, this company has typical Non-disclosure Agreement (NDA) and
> other such things signed by me. I have not bother to read them and I
> am sure even if I read the agreement, I am not going to make out
> anything.

> Obviously, I do not intend to use company time or resources for this
> open source purpose. I plan to re-write the whole thing at home.

My question #1 would be why you ask this at comp.compression. This is
a legal question, not a question concerned about compression.

My answer would be to ask the people that should know, namely your
administrator in the company you are working for; this is the most
qualified answer you can get.

If you want to hear my opinion, then you are likely not able to
put some of the ideas of the commercial project into open source
without (explicit, written) permission. Typical contracts include a
statement that your work becomes the intellectual property of the
company you are working for.

So long,
Thomas

Severian [MVP]

2005-04-22, 3:56 pm

On 22 Apr 2005 00:31:09 -0700, manish.baj@gmail.com (manish) wrote:

>hi,
>
>i am working in the field of Video codecs in a private company. I have
>gained exposure to both proprietary codecs and open source codecs
>while working on various projects for my company.
>
>Now, if i want to contribute some ideas to open source projects like
>XVid (putting some new algorithm or some interesting optimizations in
>the public domain), I want to know, am I breaking some confidentiality
>rule of the company?
>
>I am sure, this company has typical Non-disclosure Agreement (NDA) and
>other such things signed by me. I have not bother to read them and I
>am sure even if I read the agreement, I am not going to make out
>anything.

My Rule #1: Don't sign anything until you've read and understood it.

>Obviously, I do not intend to use company time or resources for this
>open source purpose. I plan to re-write the whole thing at home.

My Rule #2: If it uses information (intellection property) of your
company, you are stealing it.

--
Sev
"And I am but a thought of mine, an egotisticality."

Severian [MVP]

2005-04-22, 3:56 pm

On 22 Apr 2005 08:12:31 GMT, Thomas Richter
<thor@tunix.math.tu-berlin.de> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>
>
>
>
>My question #1 would be why you ask this at comp.compression. This is
>a legal question, not a question concerned about compression.
>
>My answer would be to ask the people that should know, namely your
>administrator in the company you are working for; this is the most
>qualified answer you can get.
>
>If you want to hear my opinion, then you are likely not able to
>put some of the ideas of the commercial project into open source
>without (explicit, written) permission. Typical contracts include a
>statement that your work becomes the intellectual property of the
>company you are working for.

Many are probably as bad as an agreement a former employer tried to
forceme to sign: that even things done _on my own time_ and with no
relation to company IP would be owned by them.

For three years, I refused to sign it and they repeatedly threatened
to fire me for my refusal. I offered to sign something worded so that
work I did at their behest would be owned by them, but that was not
good enough ("*Everyone* has to sign this to work here!").

I started by own company while still working for them, then quit that
day job once my own income was sufficient. I never did sign that piece
of crap, and I'll never make my employees sign anything that broad or
evil.

--
Sev
"And I am but a thought of mine, an egotisticality."

Jim Leonard

2005-04-22, 3:56 pm

manish wrote:
> I am sure, this company has typical Non-disclosure Agreement (NDA)
and
> other such things signed by me. I have not bother to read them and I
> am sure even if I read the agreement, I am not going to make out
> anything.

Then you shouldn't have signed it. Because you have, you cannot share
any proprietary (company-developed) techniques with the opensource
community, however noble your intentions.

Erpy

2005-04-22, 8:55 pm

"Jim Leonard" <MobyGamer@gmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:1114182531.476382.28690@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> manish wrote:
> and
>
> Then you shouldn't have signed it. Because you have, you cannot share
> any proprietary (company-developed) techniques with the opensource
> community, however noble your intentions.
>

However noble the intentions, "re-writing" company stuff for an open-source
project is in breach of basic laws in any company in the world.
Even without signing any NDA, that stuff is copyrighted. (cannot be
reproduced)

Best,

E.

Simon Jackson, BEng.

2005-04-23, 3:55 am

manish.baj@gmail.com (manish) wrote in message news:<1db770b2.0504212331.24e12b3e@posting.google.com>...
> hi,
>
> i am working in the field of Video codecs in a private company. I have
> gained exposure to both proprietary codecs and open source codecs
> while working on various projects for my company.
>

The current property paradigm of, is a copy of a chair a new chair
nowadays?

> Now, if i want to contribute some ideas to open source projects like
> XVid (putting some new algorithm or some interesting optimizations in
> the public domain), I want to know, am I breaking some confidentiality
> rule of the company?

confideniality relates to maintaining privacy of the pot of gold at
the end of the pay check. whats there objection to you wanting to do
it?

>
> I am sure, this company has typical Non-disclosure Agreement (NDA) and
> other such things signed by me. I have not bother to read them and I
> am sure even if I read the agreement, I am not going to make out
> anything.
>

national security in face of the viral threat poxing boxes everywhere,
do it release the force of the source in the 'public interest' ???? is
there statute for your responsability to make networks comply.

> Obviously, I do not intend to use company time or resources for this
> open source purpose. I plan to re-write the whole thing at home.
>

good chance to make improvements which extend the design. i think
under european (c) law examination and reverse engineering are allowed
for the purpose of reasearch, i mean how many cycles shall be wasted
without the runeous endevour :-)

> Do advise me over the same.
>
> Regards
> Manish

Severian [MVP]

2005-04-23, 3:55 am

On 22 Apr 2005 20:17:44 -0700, jackokring@yahoo.com (Simon Jackson,
BEng.) wrote:

>manish.baj@gmail.com (manish) wrote in message news:<1db770b2.0504212331.24e12b3e@posting.google.com>...
>
>The current property paradigm of, is a copy of a chair a new chair
>nowadays?

Hmm. These seem to be English words, strung together randomly to
create Carrollian nonsense.

>
>confideniality relates to maintaining privacy of the pot of gold at
>the end of the pay check. whats there objection to you wanting to do
>it?

Their objection is greed: they claim the right to take what you do on
_your own time_ and claim it as theirs: the New Slavery.

Be sure to read and understand anything you have to sign.

>
>national security in face of the viral threat poxing boxes everywhere,
>do it release the force of the source in the 'public interest' ???? is
>there statute for your responsability to make networks comply.

What?

>
>good chance to make improvements which extend the design. i think
>under european (c) law examination and reverse engineering are allowed
>for the purpose of reasearch, i mean how many cycles shall be wasted
>without the runeous endevour :-)

Unless you helped develop that original design, in which case any
concurrent or subsequent contributions are considered property of The
Company, per the agreement(s) signed with them. This is how Orwellian
prophecies become truth.

Dear Simon,

Please speak English here. It will make communication with you much
simpler. Trollish is known by very few.

--
Phillip Crews aka Severian
Microsoft MVP, Windows SDK
Posting email address is real, but please post replies on the newsgroup.

Simon Jackson, BEng.

2005-04-24, 3:55 pm

"Severian [MVP]" <severian@chlamydia-is-not-a-flower.com> wrote in message news:<t3oj61tqaefus31qmp41uq8l1912j1tmjm@4ax.com>...
> On 22 Apr 2005 20:17:44 -0700, jackokring@yahoo.com (Simon Jackson,
> BEng.) wrote:
>
>
> Hmm. These seem to be English words, strung together randomly to
> create Carrollian nonsense.

i hardly say random.

>
>
> Their objection is greed: they claim the right to take what you do on
> _your own time_ and claim it as theirs: the New Slavery.
>
> Be sure to read and understand anything you have to sign.

also be aware of your right to claim duress, on the grounds you have
to work to live.

>
>
> What?

if he was adding somthing which the security services liked to stop
system hacking, to increase network stability. but of course there may
be no money in that.

>
>
> Unless you helped develop that original design, in which case any
> concurrent or subsequent contributions are considered property of The
> Company, per the agreement(s) signed with them. This is how Orwellian
> prophecies become truth.
>
> Dear Simon,
>
> Please speak English here. It will make communication with you much
> simpler. Trollish is known by very few.

i'll try but my virtual oxford nanny seems to have ran off with my
vapourware eton.

Malcolm Taylor

2005-04-26, 8:55 am

Hi Erpy & Manish,

Erpy wrote:
> However noble the intentions, "re-writing" company stuff for an open-source
> project is in breach of basic laws in any company in the world.
> Even without signing any NDA, that stuff is copyrighted. (cannot be
> reproduced)

The issue is not copyright, buy IP. Copyrighted items can be
successfully rewritten legally, however if you make use of IP that
belongs to the company then this is not possible.

The distinction is that Copyright covers the written work (and literal
copying of it), and IP covers patentable ideas such as the algorithms
that were used in the software (if you are in USA at least).

There are many IP agreements used in the USA which prohibit anything -
basically saying something like 'everything you do whilst an employee
and perhaps 6 months after belongs to us whether or not it has anything
to do with us or is done during time paid for by us'. The reason is
usually laziness, it is easier to exclude everything than to try to
define what is acceptable or not.

How do you solve this issue in order to work on Open Source? Get your
employer to write a letter or contract that says you can work on such
and such Open Source project with any conditions they might set (eg.
reviewing code before submission), and then both sign it.

Malcolm

Simon Jackson, BEng.

2005-05-01, 8:55 pm

Malcolm Taylor <me@me.com> wrote in message news:<426d7e5a@news.orcon.net.nz>...
> Hi Erpy & Manish,
>
> Erpy wrote:
>
> The issue is not copyright, buy IP. Copyrighted items can be
> successfully rewritten legally, however if you make use of IP that
> belongs to the company then this is not possible.
>
> The distinction is that Copyright covers the written work (and literal
> copying of it), and IP covers patentable ideas such as the algorithms
> that were used in the software (if you are in USA at least).
>
> There are many IP agreements used in the USA which prohibit anything -
> basically saying something like 'everything you do whilst an employee
> and perhaps 6 months after belongs to us whether or not it has anything
> to do with us or is done during time paid for by us'. The reason is
> usually laziness, it is easier to exclude everything than to try to
> define what is acceptable or not.
>
> How do you solve this issue in order to work on Open Source? Get your
> employer to write a letter or contract that says you can work on such
> and such Open Source project with any conditions they might set (eg.
> reviewing code before submission), and then both sign it.
>
> Malcolm

or get your payment stucture altered for 24-7 control over your time.
all IP has to be published in patent in order to extract definite
royalty claims, anything else not so published would be dificult to
prove IP ownership in court, and may even be deemed inhibiting
commercial explotation, the major reason for IP law. if you give away
their shareholders IP then you may be liable for no licence, but they
may have infringed licence of open source tools. also if they did not
invent the IP, but claim ownership rights over your invention, then
you may find you have rights of sale/giving as well as them if this
does not negatively effect their market.

take an example of some technology you could invent. first the
government gets to say if it wants it by confiscation, and so your
right to sign a contract giving some non goverment company free
controll of all your future inventivness may be short sighted, and
statute may void part of your desire for contract. publication of the
IP is a step to ensure that the full market demand and explotation for
the IP is available, sitting on IP and witholding it from publication
lasts at most 18 months in UK. the worst they could do is charge
people licence, and blame you for making them money from the market.
for them to assume a lost sale for each 'open source' use is an
overestimation of the market, an would only present ristriction of
supply and not maximal explotation.

if a published patent does not appear after 18 months of you being
shown or creating or understanding a particular designated IP, then it
is fake IP, as no claim has been filed, and taken to explotation by
patent stage. let them have a look at your source so that they can
show you which patents have been violated.

Sponsored Links