he went to work for a company we were a vendor for
replySounds like he's getting paid to work on the same thing by a slightly different stakeholder.
I'd happily pay $$$$$$ to hire someone with commit access to Cloudflare, AWS or Google's codebase who could fix the goddamn bugs, let alone add new features.
> Sounds like he's getting paid to work on the same thing by a slightly different stakeholder.
replyThis honestly sounds like the sort of thing I'd sit down with the employee, their new employer, and various "Compliance Team" members, and firm up a bit.
Sounds good for everyone.
We get our bugs fixed, $vendor gets to say "Well we have this thing that was developed in-house for BoshNet, that might solve your problem too, it's going to cost you <some comical amount>", and everyone's happy.
No company with a legal rep is going to be happy with that situation - ever.
replyWho even owns the code the person is working on? Who is responsible when it goes wrong?
Never happy is a bit of an exaggeration. SYSV UNIX had all of these risks
and various legal departments went through them as they do regularly for more typical types of research.
replyWhen it was explicit, and part of the relationship, sure. Because those questions aren’t questions.
replyWhich is why I said you'd sit everyone down and thrash it out.
replyThat’s the “firming up” bit. You have a contract that deems the code “work for hire” even though the money flow is wonky. Legally the guy is like any 1099.
replyreply
> We wanted to release a Windows version as part of Windows 98, but sadly, Microsoft has effective building security.
replyJust finished reading, love these kind of stories. Thanks for sharing
reply