This is not a good analogy. A substantial chunk of the value of software is often the idea, not only the time worked on something. Ideas and inventions don’t happen on a schedule. Think of a chemist that is tasked with finding a way to synthesize a compound. He tries all day at work, and in the evening, on the couch, he’s struck by a bolt of enlightenment. Who does that idea belong to? German law would be pretty clear - to the company. And often, software is similar.
That only holds if the side-project is exactly what the company does, and even then it’s debatable: if a person is interested in problem X and has personal projects around X, and the company hires them because if that, do they really expect that person to stop being interested in X on a personal level?
It’s often sufficient if the general field of work matches, though to a varying degree.
> if a person is interested in problem X and has personal projects around X, and the company hires them because if that, do they really expect that person to stop being interested in X on a personal level?
This is exactly where you start entering a problematic grey area. The employer hired and pays the employee exactly to gain access and make use of that knowledge and interest and pays a wage exactly for that. And at the same time, the employee wants to continue working on their open source project, giving away exactly that knowledge for free, which potentially diminishes the value that the employer pays for. There’s a fundamental tension here which is difficult to resolve. Open communication helps, explicitly spelling out the boundaries as well. It’s impossible to tell from the tweet which side failed here to what degree, but getting a sign-off from management in edge cases is definitely a good idea.
That's a bizarre comment because the least protected thing here is the idea. This guy is free to get a new job and write a new library from scratch, or just tell his new company to do X + Y.
Also, of course, German law does not allow the US-style overarching IP clauses at all.
> This guy is free to get a new job and write a new library from scratch, or just tell his new company to do X + Y.
But that’s not what’s the issue at stake here. If I understand the tweet correctly, the code in question was written during the time of employment, though in their spare time. Depending on the exact situation, this could be problematic - for example if internal knowledge of the employer was used or if a profit motive enters the picture (sponsorship for the open source library, as in this case) Both would no longer be an issue if the code was written after employment ends, unless there’s an explicit noncompete in place.
