Let your people code

[jlongino]

While reading the morning E-newsletters I subscribe to I came across an editorial by Russell Pavlicek. The title of this meditation is his and I thought it clever as well as extremely appropriate. It is a short article but I felt it summed up the situation very well.

There are obviously many people in the industry that find/have found themselves in the same situation as tilly. It's ridiculous that industry doesn't understand that by disallowing their employees to participate in the Open Source movement in no way benefits them. In fact hurts the employees, the movement and ultimately, themselves.

--Jim

[cjf]

It's ridiculous that industry doesn't understand that by disallowing their employees to participate in the Open Source movement in no way benefits them.

There are two main problems that result in situation's like these occuring. The first is that the people who make the decisions do not understand the benefits open source provides their company with. These benefits include:

• Reducing the amount of in house code their company has to produce to keep itself running.
• Giving employees opportunities to sharpen their skills so they are of greater value to the company.
• Providing a good work environment that will keep employees happy (read: productive) while attracting other talented employees.
• Improving the company's public image.

The other major problem was well addressed in the article you link to:

The company knew how to lock me in with the employment contract, but when the time came to unlock it, no one seemed to have the keys.

I also agree with his conclusion that implementing a clear policy to allow employees to participate in open source development is very healthy for the company.

[jirwin]

I was wondering what happened to Tilly. As somewhat of a newbie I looked for anything that he had to contribute. While I can understand companies wanting to protect themselves from financial or intellectual loss, it is too bad that they can’t see that they will benefit from Open Source. I guess that it will be up to each contractor or employee to make it a condition of hire that participation in the Open Source arena is allowed. Has anyone any experience in writing contracts that allow for Open Source? Are you willing to share your experience? jeff

[jlongino]

There have been many posts related to tillys departure. An important one is Professional Employees and Works for Hire, you will find more by browsing further back through Meditations.

--Jim

[tmiklas]

Great editorial - maybe publications like the one you mentioned would change the situation... It's conclusion should reach the managers (if somebody is able to show this editorial to them).
So far i'm free to support open-source and after tilly's (who was the first that described this in public with details) problems i would pay greater attention to what i am to sign.
Everyday somebody ;-p says 'We are brave - we fight for freedom' - slogans, nothing more... In this world - computer world, freedom is a right to use software, to create software and give it away to people - it's mine, nobody pays me for that. And here's another rule from microeconomy (this time):

Whe you are an owner of some goods you have right to:
• use your property
• give it away/exchange/sell to anybody you want
• abandon using it (and it still remain yours)

So if those are basic rules of microeconomy and all the people make their decisions, concerning scarity of goods, etc... and if we have an intelectual property law, so anything that doesn't follow those basic rules is wrong and should be banned - becouse of being against the law (any of them would match).
Anyway ++ and sorry for my bad english ;-)

Greetz, Tom.