You can't really do this. Depends on your employment contract but code you write for an employer is usually copyright to them
... My first reaction was to publish the code on Github ...
You can't really do that either.
If I take that code and make a billion dollar business out of it, Box or Uber could then claim a share of it. That's the kind of things that companies do with the lawyers on retainer.
I then sue you for falsely claiming that you own it. You are particularly fucked because, thanks to this thread, you can't claim that you didn't know.
Even in California the "I wrote it on my own time" doesn't apply to software that relates to an employer's core business. In other places, like Washington State, you could be employed to write TPS reports and write a video game at home, and your employer would own that too.
IANAL but I have paid for advice on this very topic. I suggest you pay one too.
In other words, you can write generally useful components and utilities on your own time, network, and equipment; license them to your employer if everyone agrees; and either way you still own them. You just can’t write something directly related to or competitive with the products or processes that make your employer money.
The spreadsheet formulae and enhancements the author wrote during work hours at Uber, though, no. But even just their direct boss as an agent of their employer saying it’s ok to throw it on GitHub would probably cut them loose, especially since it’d be a derivative work with joint ownership.
All IMO of course, but that’s how I would have seen it in their shoes.
I’m nearly 100% certain we can look back at this comment in 20 years and find that absolutely nothing happened.
How did we get to this point as an industry and how do we change this destopia?
enjoyed the article, the bit about Excel circular ref linear regression was wild
Thanks for sharing a cool story.
I would have a hard time sleeping... like this would be like being in IT and knowing the backups were bullshit.
The later derivative that was actively used by and updated for the requirements of another employer during the coarse of work seems to more clearly their property as a derivative (but also murky because it is potentially an illegal derivative of the earlier work, if that was owned by the earlier employer.)
But even if you are unconvinced of that, work was clearly done on it on company time at Uber, where it was deployed as part of Uber China's business infrastructure. That work is absolutely owned by Uber (with maybe also some claim by Box). Not owned by OP.
We are like ants to them, they can squash us at any time, but most of the time we are too small to worry about.
Misses the point, which is: the likelihood of being sued increases when you break contracts or appear to do so
It's funny there's this idea that a company _might_ be potentially injured over code they do not want or know they had being made open source by its actual author, even though many of those companies will gladly use open-source tooling without ever contributing anything back.
Perhaps more soundly, though, in California – where Uber is headquartered – IP/Copyright for code is a huge legal question that the state and federal Supreme Court has no clear answer to. Sure, you obviously can't secretly clone Uber's entire stack, slap a new company logo on it, and start up as a competitor. But if you, as an author, wrote some code for a company under an IP agreement, then no-longer worked at said company, and then later adapted and expanded upon that code (or even started over, with the knowledge of what you learned from others' work): are you, at the originator, not legally allowed to be inspired by your past work? That's not something you, me, or even the company could decide.
> and then later adapted and expanded upon that code (or even started over, with the knowledge of what you learned from others' work)
These are extremely different scenarios. Starting with a copyrighted material and modifying it is not at all the same as reading material and starting over. The first is violating copyright, the second is a derivative work.
If I read everything correctly, what you describe doing is taking code owned by the first company and modifying it for the second company. That’s not at all a gray area. It’s a copyright violation. You the engineer sign away your rights to the code when you built it for company 1 while employed by them. Their employment contract for-sure states they own any work produced by you during your employment, and you agreed to this.
If the first project was done off of company time, posted publicly on a private account, you might have a claim to the rights.
I know you’ve dug your trench too deeply to change your mind at this point, but anyone reading your comments should know what you did was technically illegal and can get people in legal hot water.
> Their employment contract for-sure states they own any work produced by you during your employment, and you agreed to this.
There are many open legal questions as to where this line is drawn. Surely the line falls somewhere between "every character I've ever typed on a keyboard" and "the verbatim code". I personally don't think he's crossed it. IP ownership is much more complex than portrayed in HBO's Silicon Valley. That is my opinion.
Furthermore, when I worked at GitHub (now acquired by Microsoft, so I'm sure things have changed drastically) -- there were very lax IP ownership agreements in the employment contracts around code ownership, because the legal department was worried that if found in any way conflicting with California law it would render the entire IP claims null and void (which does have precedent in California).
The point is we don't know, and I think OP would know better than us if it was disallowed or not.
That said, I think OP is morally in the right here, and I wish I had the guts to do similar things.
Sharing code is a good thing. Helping one company innovate using code that another company chose to ignore is also a good thing.
You're making a huge assumption that this is what happened.
