My hair stood on end both times he did this. Holy crap that's some massive legal liability.
Edit: Updated “can actually own code” to “can’t actually own code”
The range of circumstances in which it is morally acceptable are MUCH broader.
All that to say that in some circumstances taking source code is considered theft.
(Also, if it was theft this particular example would be theft in the same way that taking a book from someone's recycling bin would be theft: no one is worse off)
2. Suppose the OP neither took the file nor memorized the code, but had photographic memory and replayed the exact visual scenes during their creation of the utility functions and copied down the code from what they saw in their mind's eye. Would that be theft?
3. Suppose the OP was solving a seemingly novel problem and suddenly remembered how they solved the exact same problem when they were employed by company X. Are they obligated to banish this solution from their mind?
It is copyright infringement, yes. That's why clean room implementations are done by someone who hasn't seen the original source code,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
For the other examples, it depends but I'm pretty sure a copyright infringement case for either of them wouldn't be immediately thrown out. IANAL but I do know that law is quite fuzzy.
I worked with a few people who were successfully sued by our employer when those people left and brought a “spare time” project/tool with them and tried to publish it. It wasn’t even code we sold or ended up using internally, but was still IP of the company because they wrote it during business hours on a work machine.
My understanding is the same though. Unfortunately whether a clause is legal or not may matter little - you’ll run out of cash for legal bills before they do. The best defense is probably just that most companies don’t care about your side projects.
Any reasonable person can expect that the MIT license on this code is valid and authorized by the rightsholder.
Did Uber or Box explicitly agree to release it under an foss license? Is it the author's personal individual copyright made on personal hardware outside of work location/time? Does it predate their employment? Nothing in the article linked indicates clearly that it was written for an employer.
If I am expected to research this for every foss library published on GitHub by someone who works for Big Tech, then we are all capital-f fucked.
It's easiest and sanest to assume that people are not lying.
Yep, that's the reasonable default position.
If however, the author of the code wrote a length article about how they'd developed this code while working for a company (not in their spare time), and you happen to read the article in question... then for that specific repo you might look at it differently.
The article in question doesn't clarify things regarding the Box derived code, nor whether they sought and received permission from Uber prior to publishing. Absent both of those, I'd personally not use code from this repo.
That's just me being risk-adverse here, as I don't personally have a use for the code. Others might make different choices. :)
You can assume whatever you want but the cops may not be very impressed.
There are a lot of polite fictions in law, and this is one of them. If you had no reasonable way of knowing that a license was invalid (or property was stolen), the judge is probably going to be sympathetic, but the property will still get returned to its proper owner.
If you DID have a reasonable way to know that the status of the property was suspect (as in this case), they are likely to take a dim view of the situation.
It is standard, reasonable person practice to use foss-labeled code on GitHub under the presumption that the license is not a lie.
This case is no different.
Nothing in the author's linked story suggests this code is not MIT licensed as the repo claims. It is unreasonable to assume that the license file in the repo is false; nothing available to us supports this assumption.
> It is standard, reasonable person practice to use foss-labeled code on GitHub under the presumption that the license is not a lie.
Yes, absolutely: presumption, not certainty. (Nitpicking the phrasing: presumption that the copyright is not a lie, the issue does not even venture into licensing.)
The lack of him saying he went to the effort of having Box or Uber license their code MIT suggests it.
There's nothing to explicitly suggest that either is the rightsholder; that is another assumption, which is directly counter to the fact that the person who wrote the code posted it alongside an MIT license.
> I demoed Box Sums to the Box Notes team at some point, and they nitpicked the UI and implementation details (“What if two people type in the same cell at the same time? They’ll just overwrite each other.” ). Nothing came of it, but I took the code and shoved it into my back pocket for a rainy day.
emphasis mine