Re:AWS gives open source the middle finger?
by skybrian on Wednesday January 09, 2019 @11:47PM
(#18871600)
People outside a company will not believe that employees of the company keep secrets from each other, at least when it suits them to believe otherwise.
So like it or not, if it looks like there're a conflict of interest (even if there isn't), people will blame it on the company.
So I don't really think it's so bad that they want to know what you're working on, provided that approval is usually granted.
Re:AWS gives open source the middle finger?
by MereInterest on Thursday January 10, 2019 @01:45AM
(#18872013)
Asking for approval, even if that approval is typically granted, still implies that they have the authority to refuse permission. The farthest that the employer's moral authority extends is to ask politely to be informed. Not to require to be informed, and certainly not to require approval.
Re:AWS gives open source the middle finger?
by chii on Thursday January 10, 2019 @03:40AM
(#18872426)
May be the permission should be flipped - the company has to ask the employee for approval to stop the opensource project.
It would work by having the employee list their projects, and the company will, when they find a conflict or some shared interest, ask for the employee to volunteer to stop their project. The employee can refuse, but typically won't.
That companies require you to get approval to work on something on your own time is fundamentally absurd. If I were a carpenter, I would not need permission to make a table. If I wrote ads, I would not need permission to write a book. That we think it reasonable for open source contributions to require company approval show that there is a severe overstepping of bounds on the part of the company.