[ContractPatch] GitHub's Plan to Let Employees Keep Side-Projects

Tony Sebro tony at sfconservancy.org
Mon May 22 16:50:31 UTC 2017


On 03/23/2017 07:01 PM, Michael Pagan wrote:
> An [interesting article][0] was posted online yesterday about GitHub's
> initiative which allows it's employees to contribute free software to
> the software sharing community, in such a way that employees won't feel
> the risk of a company (i.e. GitHub, and whoever adopts this new or
> similar agreement) taking ownership of their code.
>
> [0]: http://insights.dice.com/2017/03/22/github-beipa-employees-keep-ip/
Hi, Michael.  Thanks for sharing!
> [1]: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/?tag=ContractPatch
>
> So, right off the bat: "Good initiative, bad judgment."  BEIPA is short
> for "Balanced Employee IP Agreement".  I like the concept, but not the
> name.  Richard Stallman (RMS) has written and spoken voluminously about
> the confusing propaganda term known as IP (Intellectual Property).
....
> [2]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty
>
> The current agreement attempts to cover various different laws which may
> affect an employee, so without using the term "copyright", perhaps even
> SELFIDA (Shared Employee Liberties For Initiating Development Agreement)
> could be an acceptable name for such an agreement.  The name clarifies
> the purpose behind the agreement.  I replace the term "property" with
> "liberties", since our rights are what some companies are truly after.
> You can't even begin or initiate development without software freedom,
> let alone to continue development and collaboration within a community.
> I felt like the term "balanced" was too vague, so I used "shared"
> instead; besides, that *is* what we do in a community: We share.
>
> In essence, by signing the agreement, the employee is now "free" to work
> on his projects without the risk of losing his work to the company.  The
> article states that without such an agreement, "your employer can claim
> ownership of the intellectual property that is your app or service."
> This statement could be rewritten as: "your employer can claim ownership
> of the copyright of your program"; left out the word "service", since it
> relates to [SASS][3] (Service as a Software Substitute) hence spreading
> propaganda (i.e. software developers write software, not services).

I understand that terms like "intellectual property," "software as a
service," etc. cause confusion in some circles, and carry negative
connotations in others.  Of course, the intersection between terminology
and ideology has long been a topic of hot debate in our community. 

Given that we're just getting ContractPatch off the ground, our present
focus is on providing tech employees with the necessary resources to
understand their employment agreements and, where possible, negotiate
their way towards greater freedom.  As such, resolving the
terminology/ideology debate within the employment agreement context
isn't our initiative's immediate priority.  Perhaps, over time as
ContractPatch grows, contributors will submit patches to (or even fork)
agreements to tackle these issues.

> Anyway, I digress.  Despite some of GitHub's flaws, I really like the
> effort that they are putting into allowing other companies a way to show
> their employees that they respect their freedom-- ON and OFF the clock.
> I believe that if other companies adopt this agreement, that the
> agreement itself will be like a "seed"-- a freedom seed-- that will
> eventually take root and spread to other departments within the company,
> other branches, other divisions, and soon... other companies and
> organizations entirely.  This prospect alone is exciting for me!
>
> Not to mention, what better way do we have to let our employers know
> that we care about this, then by mentioning that other companies are
> already adopting agreements that respect computer user freedom; GitHub,
> possibly being the first (correct me if I'm wrong).  Such an agreement
> could even be used as leverage during salary negotiations; trading a
> higher salary for an additional perk, instead (e.g. a signed agreement
> for the employee to keep their copyrights).  That asking for too much?
>
> I believe that anyone who brings such an agreement with them to a salary
> negotiation meeting, final job interview, or any special meeting
> designed to bring innovative ideas to further software development, has
> the potential to plant a seed for software freedom, possibly ushering in
> 30 more years of freedom under the aegis of GNU and you if we all do it!
>
> Perhaps other companies will follow suit, and not just tech companies.
> Any thoughts?
Great minds think alike, Michael!  We're in the process of drafting
template clauses that developers can use in contract negotiations with
prospective employers.  If developers are also able to use GitHub's
agreement as leverage to ask for friendlier terms:  all the better!  :)

Best,
-Tony

-- 
Tony Sebro, General Counsel, Software Freedom Conservancy
+1-212-461-3245 x11
tony at sfconservancy.org
www.sfconservancy.org


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.sfconservancy.org/pipermail/contractpatch/attachments/20170522/bb13d826/attachment.sig>


More information about the ContractPatch mailing list