News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:GitHub lets staff own IP developed for personal projects ... by zekevermillion on Tuesday March 21, 2017 @11:30AM (#13923059)
Contracts theoretically could be protected by copyright. However, we reuse so much of the functional language that it would be difficult to prove that a given contract is sufficiently transformative to merit protection. One exception is that heavily-annotated firm templates and file memos. I would be more cautious about sharing a detailed, annotated template from a previous employer.

Some large firms in fact do require associates to sign covenants. In particular English firms seem to do this a lot. I consider it to be unethical, as it is anti-competitive and runs contrary to the interests of clients, who should remain free to select the lawyer of their choice (even a disloyal employee of their previous law firm).

Re:GitHub lets staff own IP developed for personal projects ... by btilly on Tuesday March 21, 2017 @12:15PM (#13923596)
In theory, functionally important language should be uncopyrightable.

This is the same world of theory in which software is not subject to copyright...

Re:GitHub lets staff own IP developed for personal projects ... by thaumasiotes on Tuesday March 21, 2017 @07:32PM (#13927272)
To be fair, making that distinction would imply that e.g. minified code is uncopyrightable while pretty-printed code with descriptive variable names is subject to copyright.