It's pretty worrisome that they say "The Gigsters come from companies like Google or Stripe that are looking for some extra projects." Google is pretty strict about side projects done by its employees; its IP release claims ownership over anything "along the lines of business of Google", which the company has in the past interpreted as "anything tech-related". There's a release process, but I really doubt they would grant approval for freelancing for Gigster on the side.
All that means that if the article is accurate, then customers of this service may find that Google owns their IP if they get big.
They cannot claim legal ownership of copyright or patents on projects developed outside of Google working hours and not using Google equipment. I believe there have been some cases already in the California courts over the matter. It doesn't matter what their agreement says, the law says otherwise.
1. Assumes nobody cheats and works on the side project at work. I'm not sure how happy I'd be with an outsource agency that went radio silent for 8-10 hours in the middle of the work day.
2. They can claim just about anything they like, then you get to defend yourself.
> Google is pretty strict about side projects done by its employees; its IP release claims ownership over anything
IANAL nor do I play one on TV but I don't know if I actually believe that is legal - and if it is then it's a huge legal nightmare.
Take this project for example[1]. He worked on it before he was an employee of Google and after - does that mean Google automatically gets copyright over the project? What about after he leaves Google? What about if he never touched it while working at Google - does Google still get automatic copyright over it?
Google gets copyright over any code contributed during the duration of your employment - that's what happened in the project you link to. If he doesn't touch it while working at Google, there is no such code. You're supposed to disclaim any open-source projects you wrote before Google employment - I did, and then didn't work on them while employed.
It is somewhat debatable whether this provision would stand up in court, but do you really want to fight a court battle with Google's legal team?
But Google now lays claim over its copyright which gives them the right to sell it or take it down completely. But thankfully - if you have an old version - they can't retroactively change the license. However - that won't stop Google from sending DMCA takedowns if it gets big enough.
> so this example is a non-issue
It's a huge issue - when people and companies don't even understand the terms of the GPL [1] copyright and licenses could make a huge impact. Yes - someone can fork it and call it pans and make all sorts of awesome changes - but that's horrible for software development. Now there are 2 different versions with different features - I would rather one project that completely works than 2 similar projects that kind of works.
> the author didn't care
The other contributors did - and that's equally important. I would not want to piss off the people who are contributing code to my project. Once other people start contributing code - a good open source project should respect the opinions and comments of the community.
You're right that Google has a clause for IP/Invention Assignment, but if push comes to shove a court would probably invalidate overly broad parts of a Google employees employment contract, so I think this fear is overblown. But 1) IANAL and 2) I didn't work at Google.
Google is one of the few companies that can legitimately show active work in most every technical field. I think it would be a pretty serious issue but IANAL either.
Well, any contract between the dev and Gigster almost certainly requires that dev to certify they are permitted to perform the work and that performing the services (to spec, including the spec that they are work for hire) are not in violation of any other contract.
Yeah, but I'd love to see the legal mess untangling that. There would be at least 4 parties to such a lawsuit - Google, their employee, Gigster, and the company who bought the MVP. IANAL, but I believe that such a release absolves Gigster of any legal liability, but wouldn't protect the client from having Google lay an injunction on them for using source code that belongs to Google. If somebody warrants that the goods you are receiving are not stolen and it turns out they're lying, that doesn't prevent you from having to give them back.
The way IP issues usually surface is during diligence for an investment or acquisition, anyway, and most investors won't go anywhere near a company that can't prove they own their IP.
All that means that if the article is accurate, then customers of this service may find that Google owns their IP if they get big.