www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - SecureD moving to GitLab

reply Adam Wilson <flyboynw gmail.com> writes:
Hello Fellow D'ers,

As some of you know I work for Microsoft. And as a result of the recent 
acquisition of GitHub by Microsoft, I have decided, out of an abundance 
of caution, to move all of my projects that currently reside on GitHub 
to GitLab.

Additionally, until I cease working for Microsoft, I will no longer be 
contributing code to projects hosted on GitHub, including DLang and it's 
related projects. I will continue to contribute bug reports and post to 
the forums.

I will post a link to the new SecureD repo on this thread and update the 
DUB links once I have everything setup correctly post-move.

DISCLAIMER: The actions described herein are the result of my specific 
situation and not intended as a larger commentary on recent events. This 
message should not be considered legal advice in any way. Any Microsoft 
employees reading this thread should refer to their lawyers about their 
specific situation or concerns.

-- 
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
import quiet.dlang.dev;
Jun 04
parent reply Joakim <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 at 06:45:48 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
 Hello Fellow D'ers,

 As some of you know I work for Microsoft. And as a result of 
 the recent acquisition of GitHub by Microsoft, I have decided, 
 out of an abundance of caution, to move all of my projects that 
 currently reside on GitHub to GitLab.

 [...]
This reads like a joke, why would it matter if you contributed to open source projects on an open platform that your employer runs?
Jun 04
next sibling parent Adam Wilson <flyboynw gmail.com> writes:
On 06/04/2018 11:55 PM, Joakim wrote:
 On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 at 06:45:48 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
 Hello Fellow D'ers,

 As some of you know I work for Microsoft. And as a result of the 
 recent acquisition of GitHub by Microsoft, I have decided, out of an 
 abundance of caution, to move all of my projects that currently reside 
 on GitHub to GitLab.

 [...]
This reads like a joke, why would it matter if you contributed to open source projects on an open platform that your employer runs?
And this reads like someone who has never talked to a lawyer. :) I am intentionally keeping this ambiguous as possible so that others don't try to take this as legal advice. I'm guessing you live somewhere outside the US? For reference, I do live in the US. -- Adam Wilson IRC: LightBender import quiet.dlang.dev;
Jun 05
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Brian <zoujiaqing gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 at 06:55:42 UTC, Joakim wrote:
 On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 at 06:45:48 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
 Hello Fellow D'ers,

 As some of you know I work for Microsoft. And as a result of 
 the recent acquisition of GitHub by Microsoft, I have decided, 
 out of an abundance of caution, to move all of my projects 
 that currently reside on GitHub to GitLab.

 [...]
This reads like a joke, why would it matter if you contributed to open source projects on an open platform that your employer runs?
Yes! We support Github.
Jun 05
parent Adam Wilson <flyboynw gmail.com> writes:
On 06/05/2018 12:28 AM, Brian wrote:
 On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 at 06:55:42 UTC, Joakim wrote:
 On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 at 06:45:48 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
 Hello Fellow D'ers,

 As some of you know I work for Microsoft. And as a result of the 
 recent acquisition of GitHub by Microsoft, I have decided, out of an 
 abundance of caution, to move all of my projects that currently 
 reside on GitHub to GitLab.

 [...]
This reads like a joke, why would it matter if you contributed to open source projects on an open platform that your employer runs?
Yes! We support Github.
Note that I am not saying that this is bad move for Microsoft of GitHub. Elsewhere on these forums I have defended the move as the best possible outcome for GitHub. -- Adam Wilson IRC: LightBender import quiet.dlang.dev;
Jun 05
prev sibling next sibling parent reply ExportThis <ExportThis ExportThis.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 at 06:55:42 UTC, Joakim wrote:
 This reads like a joke, why would it matter if you contributed 
 to open source projects on an open platform that your employer 
 runs?
If you read between the lines, you can 'kinda' get the message. A Microsoft employee. A Microsoft platform. Encryption. U.S Export Controls. How they all come together is anyones guess though ;-) That's why we have lawyers.
Jun 05
parent reply Jonathan M Davis <newsgroup.d jmdavisprog.com> writes:
On Tuesday, June 05, 2018 10:34:54 ExportThis via Digitalmars-d-announce 
wrote:
 On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 at 06:55:42 UTC, Joakim wrote:
 This reads like a joke, why would it matter if you contributed
 to open source projects on an open platform that your employer
 runs?
If you read between the lines, you can 'kinda' get the message. A Microsoft employee. A Microsoft platform. Encryption. U.S Export Controls. How they all come together is anyones guess though ;-) That's why we have lawyers.
Given that he works on SecureD, that could be part of it, but I don't think that exporting encryption is the problem that it once was in the US, and I'd think that the issue was more likely related to what Microsoft can claim to own. In general in the US, if your employer can claim that what you're doing in your free time is related to what you do for work, then they can claim that they own it. And if you're in a state with fewer employee protections, they can even claim to own everything you do in your free time regardless of whether it really has anything to do with any company intellectual property (e.g. a coworker at a previous company told me of a coworker who had gone to work at Bloomberg in NY after the division he was in was laid off, but he quit Bloomberg soon therefafter, because Bloomberg was going to claim to own everything he did in his free time - and he was a Linux kernel developer, so that would have caused serious problems for him). What paperwork you signed for your employer can also affect this. So, the exact situation you're in can vary wildly depending on where you live, who you work for, what exactly you do at work, and what exactly you do in your free time. If you want to sort out exactly what situation you're in, you do potentially need to see a lawyer about it. That whole set of issues may or may not be why Adam is moving his stuff to gitlab, but it does mean that you have to tread carefully when doing anything that relates at all to your employer or what you do for work. So, I can easily see it as a good idea to avoid doing anything in your free time with a site that is owned or operated by your employer. It may or may not actually be necessary, but playing it safe can avoid legal problems down the road, and typically, employees are going to have a _very_ hard time winning against employers in court, even if the employee is clearly in the right, simply because the legal fees stand a good chance of destroying the employee financially, whereas the employer can typically afford it. You simply don't want to be in a situation where your employer ever might try and do anything to you with the legal system - and of course, you don't want to be in a position where your employer fires you. So, an abundance of caution is sometimes warranted even if it arguably shouldn't need to be. - Jonathan M Davis
Jun 05
parent reply biocyberman <biocyberman gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 at 11:09:31 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 [...]
Very informative. I don't live in the US, but this gives me a feeling of how tough life can be over there for everyone, except lawyers.
Jun 05
next sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <newsgroup.d jmdavisprog.com> writes:
On Tuesday, June 05, 2018 19:15:12 biocyberman via Digitalmars-d-announce 
wrote:
 On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 at 11:09:31 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 [...]
Very informative. I don't live in the US, but this gives me a feeling of how tough life can be over there for everyone, except lawyers.
Fortunately, it's not usually a problem, but it's something that any programmer who writes code in their free time has to be aware of. In most cases, if you have a reasonable employer, you can do whatever programming you want in your free time so long as it's not related to what you work on at work. But it is occasionally a problem. - Jonathan M Davis
Jun 05
prev sibling parent reply Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
On Tue, 2018-06-05 at 13:43 -0600, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:
 [=E2=80=A6]
=20
 Fortunately, it's not usually a problem, but it's something that any
 programmer who writes code in their free time has to be aware of. In
 most
 cases, if you have a reasonable employer, you can do whatever
 programming
 you want in your free time so long as it's not related to what you
 work on
 at work. But it is occasionally a problem.
It is worth noting that any employer who understands software development and is involved in software development will write into the contract of employment that all software created by an employee at any time is the property of the employer. However, they must also have a system for explicitly allowing employees to work on code in their own time (or even on company time) that is then contributed under some licence or other. The point here is that the employee effectively has first refusal on all software created. This is of course in the jurisdiction of England & Wales, but Scotland is no different really. I'll bet this is true in the various jurisdictions of the USA. --=20 Russel. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk
Jun 06
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 6/6/2018 2:17 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
 It is worth noting that any employer who understands software
 development and is involved in software development will write into the
 contract of employment that all software created by an employee at any
 time is the property of the employer. However, they must also have a
 system for explicitly allowing employees to work on code in their own
 time (or even on company time) that is then contributed under some
 licence or other. The point here is that the employee effectively has
 first refusal on all software created.
Oh, employers do try that. I would negotiate what is mine and what is the company's, before signing. In particular, I'd disclose all projects I'd worked on before, and get a specific acknowledgement that those were not the company's. When I'd moonlight, before I'd do so, I'd describe the project on a piece of paper and get acknowledgement from the company that it is not their project. And I never had any trouble about it. (These days, life is a bit simpler. One thing I like about Github is the software is all date stamped, so I could, for instance, prove I wrote it before joining company X.)
Jun 08
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa)" <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On 06/09/2018 01:47 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
 
 Oh, employers do try that. I would negotiate what is mine and what is 
 the company's, before signing. In particular, I'd disclose all projects 
 I'd worked on before, and get a specific acknowledgement that those were 
 not the company's. When I'd moonlight, before I'd do so, I'd describe 
 the project on a piece of paper and get acknowledgement from the company 
 that it is not their project.
 
 And I never had any trouble about it.
 
 (These days, life is a bit simpler. One thing I like about Github is the 
 software is all date stamped, so I could, for instance, prove I wrote it 
 before joining company X.)
 
Maybe naive, maybe not, but my policy is that: Any hour of any day an employer claims ***ANY*** influence over, must be paid for ($$$) by said employer when attempting to make ANY claim on that hour of my life. Period. There are already far too many would-be-slavedrivers^H^H^H^H^H^H^employers who attempt to stake claim to the hours of a human being's life WHICH THEY DO *NOT* COMPENSATE FOR. If an employer *does not* pay me for an hour of my life which they *claim control over*, then the employer WILL NOT BE MY EMPLOYER. Period. If others held themselves to the same basic standards, then nobody in the world would ever be slave^H^H^H^H^Hpersonal-property to a business which makes claim to a human life without accepted compensation.
Jun 09
next sibling parent reply Jonathan M Davis <newsgroup.d jmdavisprog.com> writes:
On Saturday, June 09, 2018 04:03:40 Nick Sabalausky  via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:
 On 06/09/2018 01:47 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
 Oh, employers do try that. I would negotiate what is mine and what is
 the company's, before signing. In particular, I'd disclose all projects
 I'd worked on before, and get a specific acknowledgement that those were
 not the company's. When I'd moonlight, before I'd do so, I'd describe
 the project on a piece of paper and get acknowledgement from the company
 that it is not their project.

 And I never had any trouble about it.

 (These days, life is a bit simpler. One thing I like about Github is the
 software is all date stamped, so I could, for instance, prove I wrote it
 before joining company X.)
Maybe naive, maybe not, but my policy is that: Any hour of any day an employer claims ***ANY*** influence over, must be paid for ($$$) by said employer when attempting to make ANY claim on that hour of my life. Period. There are already far too many would-be-slavedrivers^H^H^H^H^H^H^employers who attempt to stake claim to the hours of a human being's life WHICH THEY DO *NOT* COMPENSATE FOR. If an employer *does not* pay me for an hour of my life which they *claim control over*, then the employer WILL NOT BE MY EMPLOYER. Period. If others held themselves to the same basic standards, then nobody in the world would ever be slave^H^H^H^H^Hpersonal-property to a business which makes claim to a human life without accepted compensation.
Well, the actual, legal situation doesn't always match what it arguably should be, and anyone working on salary doesn't technically get paid for any specific hours. So, that sort of argument doesn't necessarily fly. Also, there _is_ potentially a legitimate concern on the part of the employer. If you use your free time to write the same sort of stuff that you write for work, you're potentially using their IP. In particular, they really don't want you going home and writing a competing product using all of the knowledge you got working for them. And legally, attempting to do anything like that (in the US at least) will almost certainly get you in legal trouble if your employer finds out. The real problem is when employers try to claim anything unrelated to your job that you do in your free time. _That_ is completely inappropriate, but some employers try anyway, and depending on which state you live in and what you signed for the company, they may or may not be able to come after you even if it's ridiculous for them to be able to. - Jonathan M Davis
Jun 09
parent bachmeier <no spam.net> writes:
On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 08:35:25 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 The real problem is when employers try to claim anything 
 unrelated to your job that you do in your free time. _That_ is 
 completely inappropriate, but some employers try anyway, and 
 depending on which state you live in and what you signed for 
 the company, they may or may not be able to come after you even 
 if it's ridiculous for them to be able to.
Joel Spolsky wrote about this a couple years ago: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2016/12/09/developers-side-projects/
Jun 09
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 6/9/2018 1:03 AM, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
 Maybe naive, maybe not, but my policy is that: Any hour of any day an employer 
 claims ***ANY*** influence over, must be paid for ($$$) by said employer when 
 attempting to make ANY claim on that hour of my life. Period.
If that's the deal you want, then negotiate for it.
Jun 09
parent rikki cattermole <rikki cattermole.co.nz> writes:
On 09/06/2018 9:57 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 6/9/2018 1:03 AM, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
 Maybe naive, maybe not, but my policy is that: Any hour of any day an 
 employer claims ***ANY*** influence over, must be paid for ($$$) by 
 said employer when attempting to make ANY claim on that hour of my 
 life. Period.
If that's the deal you want, then negotiate for it.
It's called the law in New Zealand :)
Jun 09
prev sibling parent Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
On Sat, 2018-06-09 at 04:03 -0400, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) via Digitalma=
rs-
d-announce wrote:
=20
[=E2=80=A6]
 Maybe naive, maybe not, but my policy is that: Any hour of any day an=20
 employer claims ***ANY*** influence over, must be paid for ($$$) by said=
=20
 employer when attempting to make ANY claim on that hour of my life. Perio=
d. Employees involved in intellectual endeavour need to be beholden to the employer at all times since the employee might have ideas useful to the employer at any time. This is a complicated issue and extreme positions are not helpful. But everyone to their own.
 There are already far too many=20
 would-be-slavedrivers^H^H^H^H^H^H^employers who attempt to stake claim=
=20
 to the hours of a human being's life WHICH THEY DO *NOT* COMPENSATE FOR.
This is why permissive software licences were invented, so people would do lots of work on FOSS and then companies could use it for their own money making purposes without any thought of paying anyone anything.
 If an employer *does not* pay me for an hour of my life which they=20
 *claim control over*, then the employer WILL NOT BE MY EMPLOYER. Period.
Salaries are like that, employers own you 24/7.
 If others held themselves to the same basic standards, then nobody in=20
 the world would ever be slave^H^H^H^H^Hpersonal-property to a business=
=20
 which makes claim to a human life without accepted compensation.
It's all about supply and demand in this currently capitalist world. You ca= n bet there will be someone who will do it even if you won't. How else do the "sweat shops" work. Openness, compromise, accommodation, and collaboration work best in what is= a fundamentally combative, us vs them economic system. --=20 Russel. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk
Jun 09
prev sibling parent Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
On Fri, 2018-06-08 at 22:47 -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
=20
[=E2=80=A6]
 Oh, employers do try that. I would negotiate what is mine and what is the=
=20
 company's, before signing. In particular, I'd disclose all projects I'd
 worked=20
 on before, and get a specific acknowledgement that those were not the
 company's.=20
 When I'd moonlight, before I'd do so, I'd describe the project on a piece
 of=20
 paper and get acknowledgement from the company that it is not their proje=
ct. Not only should employers try that, they must do that or fail in their responsibilities to the shareholders. But that is the point, all the employer needs to know is that any software = you do outside the company does not compete with or "steal" stuff from inside = the company. Openness and straightforwardness is all that is required so all parties know what is going on.=20 =20
 And I never had any trouble about it.
Any potential employer not behaving reasonably, is an employer not to work for.
 (These days, life is a bit simpler. One thing I like about Github is the=
=20
 software is all date stamped, so I could, for instance, prove I wrote it
 before=20
 joining company X.)
And of course, non-GPL and LGPL software on GItHub, GitLab, BitBucket, Launchpad, are there fore the taking: why pay people when you can use their work free of charge. ;-) --=20 Russel. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk
Jun 09
prev sibling next sibling parent JN <666total wp.pl> writes:
On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 at 06:55:42 UTC, Joakim wrote:
 On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 at 06:45:48 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
 Hello Fellow D'ers,

 As some of you know I work for Microsoft. And as a result of 
 the recent acquisition of GitHub by Microsoft, I have decided, 
 out of an abundance of caution, to move all of my projects 
 that currently reside on GitHub to GitLab.

 [...]
This reads like a joke, why would it matter if you contributed to open source projects on an open platform that your employer runs?
I think it's the case of possible "use of company assets for non work related purposes", even if Github still remains open for everyone.
Jun 05
prev sibling next sibling parent "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 06:55:42AM +0000, Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
 On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 at 06:45:48 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
 Hello Fellow D'ers,
 
 As some of you know I work for Microsoft. And as a result of the
 recent acquisition of GitHub by Microsoft, I have decided, out of an
 abundance of caution, to move all of my projects that currently
 reside on GitHub to GitLab.
 
 [...]
This reads like a joke, why would it matter if you contributed to open source projects on an open platform that your employer runs?
Remember this phrase: conflict of interest. It can land you in serious legal trouble when it involves your employer. T -- If it's green, it's biology, If it stinks, it's chemistry, If it has numbers it's math, If it doesn't work, it's technology.
Jun 05
prev sibling parent Kapps <opantm2+spam gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 at 06:55:42 UTC, Joakim wrote:
 On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 at 06:45:48 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
 Hello Fellow D'ers,

 As some of you know I work for Microsoft. And as a result of 
 the recent acquisition of GitHub by Microsoft, I have decided, 
 out of an abundance of caution, to move all of my projects 
 that currently reside on GitHub to GitLab.

 [...]
This reads like a joke, why would it matter if you contributed to open source projects on an open platform that your employer runs?
It can be easily argued as using company assets for a side project, and gets into situations where now your company owns the IP of the thing you built on your own time. Even without using company assets a lot of employers try to add something into contracts that everything you do is owned by them, even in your off hours with no resources and not particularly related to your day job. It's pretty ridiculous.
Jun 08