But if you bake a cake in your off-time, do you tell people it's from you or from your company?

This particular repo is maintained by IBM, though.

If I work for a bakery, bake a cake at home, and come put it in the display cooler at work, they might have issues with that.

I dunno, does your bakery need that cake? Are your tools at home equal or better than the ones in your office?

There’s more to that than the simple example you give.

> There’s more to that than the simple example you give.

It's likely "You are an IBM employee 100% of the time" has a similarly complex backstory.

> I dunno, does your bakery need that cake? Are your tools at home equal or better than the ones in your office?

Ultimately, if the bakery explicitly says "stop putting your personal shit in the work display", you obey or be fired. Even if it's a better cake, or your at-home tools are better.

If you burn yourself and go to the emergency room is it worker's comp?

How would this play out if you were a baker?

It would work fine, bakers are allowed to cook at home.

The analogy is a little fraught. If a baker bakes at home it's ostensibly not for public consumption. If you work at IBM you could literally code at home too.

This is more like a baker baking things at home, and giving them away for free under their own shingle. That still lacks the nuance of software scalability and licensing but it's a little closer.

What about the baker baking at home and then selling his cake? Selling it to potential/ex customers of the bakery?

Was the source code in question sold?

No, it was given out for free, so competitors can take it and put it into their products for free.

And does your job prevent you from doing open source work in your free time? If not, then I don't see how it's relevant.

Often yes!! Check your contracts people or ask a lawyer. You'll be surprised.

> Often yes

Then it should say so in the comment. Preferably adding their thoughts about it, whether it's enforced in their company, etc.

Debating whether you're technically an employee 100% of your time is both true and needlessly pedantic.

It's a rhetorical argumentation technique. They make it seem like it's inevitable and follows naturally from the obvious fact that you are an employee 100% of the time, so they don't even need to spell out the specific point in the contract, implying that it's not just a technicality in the contract but something fundamental. Which is of course not true, as in many countries you can't have such valid terms.

I think you might be giving much credit to random internet commenters. They probably just like to say "technically speaking".

I'm not talking about random commenters. I mean the manager who wrote "... you are an IBM employee 100% of the time ..." .

There is some bullshit that goes on here though. Many companies do not have a contract that you sign and consent to, they just try to back door it as fungible company policy - like the way social media companies get you to agree to new privacy policy and terms by your continued use.

Many companies put these IP and non-competition clauses into bonus award agreements. By accepting a bonus you agree to a bunch of terms and that’s where consideration comes in and makes it a real contract and legal. I have less of a problem with this arrangement than the back door approach.

If you make a baby in the off hours, it is yours or your employer's?

If my day job is making babies for my employer, that answer probably gets complicated.