Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Real Name For Open Source Development?

Posted by CmdrTaco on Mon Nov 17, 2008 02:00 PM
from the my-name-is-guy-ingonito dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Do you contribute to open source projects under your real name or a nickname? The openness of open source can be encouraging, but software patents you have never heard of can become a nightmare if a patent troll sues for implementing 'their' scroll bar. A real name also means you end up in the big index we call search engines. An assumed name could be an additional layer of protection, but what are its pros and cons and is it worth the hassle when asked to participate in a meatspace meeting?"
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • probably overkill (Score:5, Informative)

    by seanadams.com (463190) * on Monday November 17 2008, @02:01PM (#25789657) Homepage

    An open source project is an unlikely target for a patent troll. Trolls by definition are not in business actually implementing the technology that is the subject of their patents, so your open source project doesn't hurt them directly. Unless you're making lots of money selling your open source software, there's not much they can hope to sue you for.

    If you are looking to for personal liability protection then you should create a corporation under which you do all your software development, which might even include hobby or GPL work. This is probably overkill, but it may be a good idea if you think that there's any possibility of building a business around your hobby work in the future. In that case you might be able to claim some tax breaks for the cost of your computer, internet connection etc.

    Hiding behind a pseudonym is only helpful in the case where you are doing something very illegal or commercially disruptive, in which case you need to do a lot more than just choose a handle, eg offshoring, money laundering etc. See online casinos, spammers, and porn sites for ideas...

    • Re:probably overkill (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Ethanol-fueled (1125189) * on Monday November 17 2008, @02:03PM (#25789689) Homepage
      Simple. Use pseudonyms such as "John Smith" or "Robert Johnson" which are natural enough to be used in the meatspace and popular enough to be a needle in a haystack as far as Google Searches are concerned. This is a popular technique for restaraunt critics and the like whose reviews necessitate unbiased anonymity.

      If you use hacker-ish sounding names like CapnCrunch or Dildog then you're asking for notoriety and your ass will be laughed at in a LUG.

      Sadly enough, if anybody really wanted to track you down then they'd just throw money at a P.I. or at a buddy who works for your ISP.
      • by Renegade88 (874837) on Monday November 17 2008, @02:11PM (#25789851)

        If you use hacker-ish sounding names like CapnCrunch or Dildog then you're asking for notoriety and your ass will be laughed at in a LUG.

        Are you speaking from experience, Ethanol-Fueled?

      • Re:probably overkill (Score:4, Interesting)

        by JWSmythe (446288) * <jwsmythe AT jwsmythe DOT com> on Monday November 17 2008, @02:37PM (#25790263) Homepage Journal

            I resemble that remark.

            I use "JW Smythe" as my online name. It's all over the place. Luckly, there are a few other people who use that or variations of it "J.W. Smythe", "John W. Smythe", "Jon Smythe". Pick out the real me. Of course, it's not my real name, but it sounds reasonable. If someone I'm not expecting calls me by my alias, I ignore them, or ask them who they're talking about.

            My real name oddly enough is even more popular, by Google searches. There are lots of "me" all around the world, all doing different things. It keeps people wondering if my real name is yet another pseudonym, or it's really me. :)

            Only clients and friends know my real name. They also have read my little essay on why I use an alias. Some people still ask for clarification of why. Why? Because there are a lot of weird people out there, and I don't want to go around to the millions of freaks out there saying "Hi, my name is ____ , come look for me." I've known call center folks who have been harassed, threatened, and stalked, because they've used their real names. Even when I've answered phones, they get my pseudonym of the day (or of the job). I use names like some guys use girlfriends. Use it until it's burnt, then pretend it never existed.

            The reason of liability when some corporate lawyer decides to play rough applies too, but that's pretty low on my priority list. I worry more about the millions of lunatics floating around the Internet. :)

           

    • Over KILL (Score:5, Funny)

      by Nick Driver (238034) on Monday November 17 2008, @02:16PM (#25789935)

      Well, Hans Reiser used his real name....

      Need I say more?

        • by sorak (246725) on Monday November 17 2008, @03:04PM (#25790727)

          but he was down with the whole stabbing people thing. I know, hindsight is 20/20, but I always tell my son, do try to have something worthwhile named after you, don't stab people.

          I guess Hans Reiser got mixed up.

          BTW, if you're wondering about my alias, well, I want something worthwhile named after me, and, well, you've seen my posts.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      As a general rule, I only use my real information if I have to (like if you sign up for paypal). I don't see a harm in using an alias wherever you can. In fact, I think it's a good policy for everyone.
    • Re:probably overkill (Score:5, Informative)

      by tgd (2822) on Monday November 17 2008, @02:44PM (#25790363)

      Actually, no, if you're looking for personal liability protection, buy a personal liability insurance policy.

      $2m in liability coverage is a couple hundred dollars a year. If you have any assets (and you'd have to in order to be concerned about liability), its an absolute no-brainer to buy an umbrella policy.

      People are sue-happy these days.

      • Re:probably overkill (Score:5, Informative)

        by julesh (229690) on Tuesday November 18 2008, @04:05AM (#25799139)

        Actually, no, if you're looking for personal liability protection, buy a personal liability insurance policy.

        $2m in liability coverage is a couple hundred dollars a year. If you have any assets (and you'd have to in order to be concerned about liability), its an absolute no-brainer to buy an umbrella policy.

        People are sue-happy these days.

        And the cost of a lost patent-infringement suit could easily top $2M. You should be looking for at least $10M cover, if you ask me.

        Or, as the GP suggests, simply use a limited liability corporation, which will cost substantially less. You can form a company which will cost about $150 in the first year and about $50 per annum thereafter, and if it isn't trading commercially you won't need to hire an accountant etc (just read a few books on how to look after it). If anybody is stupid enough to sue it you just file paperwork to fold the business. Sure, they'll end up owning copyright to your work, but as you've probably GPL'd it, that's not particularly helpful for them...

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        There is no need to do something "very illegal", you just have to contribute to something a little "borderline"

        You don't even have to do anything questionable. There just has to be someone who objects noisily to it, which is a depressingly low threshold.

  • Real Name! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 17 2008, @02:01PM (#25789659)
    you should always use your real name when publishing online!
  • by Octorian (14086) on Monday November 17 2008, @02:04PM (#25789709) Homepage

    Right now the only project I actively contribute to is my own. Of course I have my real name on the project site and in the copyright headers. However, my username (on the site and the repository logs) is more of an online nick. The downside of this is that I get lots of e-mails and forum posts where people assume that nick is my real name.

    Of course once I'm at the point where I care about liability protection, I'd rather form some sort of LLC to contain my efforts. I really do want to contribute in a way that people know its me, since what's the point of contributing to a project you can't personally claim credit for?

  • by Green Salad (705185) on Monday November 17 2008, @02:04PM (#25789711) Homepage

    As long as I sign my code as Blue Salad, they'll never guess I'm really "Green Salad." Muh haha

  • Another Con (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 17 2008, @02:06PM (#25789733)
    I bothered to read every letter of a contract I signed with a company I once worked for and it had the peculiar verbage something to the effect of "... every idea or product developed by the employee during their employment at CompanyX is intellectual property of CompanyX." I got some clarification which resulted in the understanding that that particular phrase was left open so that if I went home and wrote an NLP engine from scratch while I was employed, it was their intellectual property. Let's just say at that time I needed the money and my foot in the door so I did take that temporary position.

    From that early moment on, all contributions have been pretty darn anonymous. Remember, you're not just protecting yourself, you're protecting other OSS developers, other OSS companies and more importantly the users.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Radio shack used to have a clause like that too. They even claimed everything you produced for a year after you left. Laughable. As if my sales training there would lead to creating something useful.

    • by SuperKendall (25149) on Monday November 17 2008, @02:52PM (#25790521)

      From that early moment on, all contributions have been pretty darn anonymous

      But what happens if someone finds out? The project is still in just as much risk. That's honestly not very kind either.

      Far better is to clarify and modify that contract you are about to sign. Even the lowliest peon can easily ask to have a clause put in along the lines of "The IP section does not cover inventions made using my own equipment outside of company time" (have a lawyer write the real thing). Because otherwise by blindly agreeing, even your posts here on Slashdot are owned by your employer under the typical agreement.

      ALmost any company will let you add an addendum like that to your employment contract. Do not be overawed by contracts, they are simply a starting point.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          My experience has been that I have gotten an exclusion all three times this has come up. The key is to be reasonable.

    • Re:Another Con (Score:5, Informative)

      by Zordak (123132) on Monday November 17 2008, @03:04PM (#25790729) Homepage Journal

      Actually, that's not "peculiar." Pretty much every employment contract will have a clause like that (more generous employers will just grab IP "related to your work," but read that broadly). And for the most part, it's enforceable.

      There's also a problem with your anonymous contributions. The open source projects you donated code to are now tainted. If your employer decides to sue you for whatever reason, they'll ask in discovery for you to produce all IP you created while employed. Sure, you can lie and hide the stuff you did, and they may not find out. But if they do, you'll get sanctioned, and the judge will not be your friend after that. Bottom line, take those clauses seriously. If you're doing something unrelated and you really don't think your business is interested, get a signed release for your project. Or better yet, tell them up front that you work on unrelated open source projects, and ask them if they'll agree to a narrowly-crafted exclusion in the employment agreement. They may say yes.

      I'm a lawyer, but this post isn't legal advice. Don't rely on it for any reason.

      • Re:Another Con (Score:5, Insightful)

        by YouWantFriesWithThat (1123591) on Monday November 17 2008, @02:18PM (#25789973)
        just because it won't stand up in court doesn't mean that you will have the funds to litigate it successfully...
        • Re:Another Con (Score:4, Informative)

          by Zero__Kelvin (151819) on Monday November 17 2008, @03:46PM (#25791389) Homepage
          You won't need the funds to litigate it. The suit is a non-starter (in the US.) A clause, worded exactly as the OP stated, would be limited to work directly related to the company that employs you. In other words, if you work for a software company, only innovations directly related to their area of specialty would be covered by the clause and not all software inventions.

          Any case not related to the companies direct business would not be allowed to proceed.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Just because you sign a contract doesn't mean you can be legally held to it. You can't be legally held to kill someone after signing a contract to carry out murder.

        Employers may think that they have dominion over an employee's life simply because they're paying them, but they actually don't. If they aren't directly paying you for the work, there's a reasonable expectation that it is yours. Does the company also own part of your house if you did repairs on it yourself?

  • Real, of course. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by John Hasler (414242) on Monday November 17 2008, @02:06PM (#25789735)

    > Do you contribute to open source projects under your real name or a nickname?

    Real, of course. Why would I want to hide?

    > The openness of open source can be encouraging, but software patents you have never
    > heard of can become a nightmare if a patent troll sues for implementing 'their' scroll
    > bar.

    As a pure unpaid contributor of source code you have no patent liability.

    > A real name also means you end up in the big index we call search engines.

    I've been using my real name on the Net for more than twenty years. I don't see the problem.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      > As a pure unpaid contributor of source code you have no patent liability.

      Unfortunately, that's not true. Actually, as an unpaid, noncommercial USER of a software product, you CAN have patent liability.

      Patents extend to the right to control all development and use of derivative technologies whether commercially or noncommercially.

    • Real, of course. Why would I want to hide?

      Because now everyone knows you as a T-bagger [wikipedia.org]

  • Obvious con (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MikeRT (947531) on Monday November 17 2008, @02:07PM (#25789763) Homepage
    It won't be easy to prove to a potential employer that you work(ed) on the project, so you might as well not include it on your resume unless you're tenacious about it.
  • by girlintraining (1395911) on Monday November 17 2008, @02:10PM (#25789811)

    I've never had any problems submitting my code as Bill_Gates55, but RMS1953 can sometimes get me into trouble. Of course, nobody would believe me if I used my real name; Girls don't program.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          My name, Michele when read with non-italian rules (ch = k in Italian) is considered a female name and you cannot even image how many people (almost exclusively Americans I must say) at first think I am a girl, yet nobody had problems looking at my code. And yes, is an awkward situation anyways.
        • Re:Really? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by JWSmythe (446288) * <jwsmythe AT jwsmythe DOT com> on Monday November 17 2008, @04:45PM (#25792489) Homepage Journal

              I have a female friend who programs. She runs into the problem of people know she's a girl, so she obviously can't program. I've worked with her, and know she can. Sometimes I run into problems that she can solve. Sometimes she runs into problems that I can solve. That's teamwork though, not a failure of either of us to be able to do our work.

              Sometimes I've gone talked to her clients, and said exactly what she said, and they believe it when I say it, because I'm a guy and must know what I'm saying. It's not good, but I don't mind backing her up when she needs it. Really, she shouldn't need it though. Now we just have to convince the rest of the world of that.

  • by viridari (1138635) on Monday November 17 2008, @02:11PM (#25789853) Homepage

    ...use someone else's real name?

    Find a great idea while mining through software patents? Use a name of someone you'd like to see twist in the wind and implement this concept in your favorite Open Source project. What could be more fun?

  • by moore.dustin (942289) on Monday November 17 2008, @02:12PM (#25789861)
    When in doubt, go the safe route where you have some degree of control over your personal information. I contribute to a few sites here and there, not to mention the few I run myself, and I write every single word under a pen name. There are a few reasons why I do this, mostly privacy issues related to avoiding unwarranted judgment/stigma from something I wrote. A pen name/alias/handle protects from this problem, but also has the added benefit of being able to 'reveal yourself' at a later date if you decide to forgo the privacy stuff.

    That being said, I specifically choose to NOT assume an alias here on slashdot. I have my reasons for doing so, but they are of no consequence. The point is, you should think about your choice and the consequences of it. After weighing the information, if you are still on the fence, you should err on the side of caution and assume an alias.
  • by eln (21727) on Monday November 17 2008, @02:16PM (#25789937) Homepage

    Ever since releasing my first open source OS back in '91, I've been using the pseudonym "Linus Torvalds", which I thought was a sufficiently ridiculous name that no one would ever confuse me for anyone else. Imagine my consternation when some joker from Finland started getting all of these awesome jobs and invited to speak at conferences and whatnot because everyone thought he was me! He's been milking it ever since.

  • by PingXao (153057) on Monday November 17 2008, @02:18PM (#25789967)

    I never use my real name online, or at least as little as possible. The reason is I don't want future potential employers to be able to Google up any dirt - real or perceived - on me. If I want to bring some of my OSS work to a prospective employer's attention I can do that. I can also pretty much prove that I am responsible for this feature on that program, or that my contributions are legit.

    Having you real name associated online with just about anything is IMO a bad idea. The risks are high and the benefits are almost nonexistent. The odds are 10-1 (I just pulled that number out of my ass) that dirt will outrank achievments if you use your real name and someone Googles for you. That one time you got drunk and went off on some insane rant 5 years ago WILL come back to haunt you no matter how many other positive things there are.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      That one time you got drunk and went off on some insane rant 5 years ago WILL come back to haunt you no matter how many other positive things there are.

      I'm not sure about that. With the increasing omnipresence of search engines, you're going to see everybody's drunk insane rant posted and accessible online. If any prospective employer held that sort of thing against me, I doubt that I'd accept the job. Also, there are consequences to not having information about yourself online. After all, if I'm an employer and I don't see any work or any references to you online, I might wonder what you have to hide.

  • by Bruce Perens (3872) * <bruce AT perens DOT com> on Monday November 17 2008, @02:20PM (#25790007) Homepage Journal

    If you want to be protected by the patent terms of Open Source licenses, which for example was important in the JMRI case, you need to be properly identified. Otherwise, you may have a hard time proving to some judge that you should be protected because the plaintiff should have known that you were "Blue Salad".

    Also, the project should make your identity known in the software package as copyright holder. Apache is terrible about this, they strip attribution from most stuff.

    And I have a problem with anonomously-donated or anonymously-licensed Open Source, because how do you know the anonymous person actually had the right to donate and you won't run into trouble down the line.

    Probably the best thing you can do is assign your copyright to an organization that keeps your identity private. Maybe FSF and some of the incorporated Open Source projects would do this.

    Bruce

    • by jaaron (551839) on Monday November 17 2008, @04:28PM (#25792153) Homepage

      Apache strips attribution from source files to avoid anyone feeling they own a particular bit of code instead of the community in general. Authorship is maintained through the issue tracker and the subversion commit records.

      Moreover, no contributions to Apache are anonymous. All contributions through the issue tracker require the submitter to provide a license for use of the work in Apache. All committers who provide significant works are required to sign a contributor license agreement.

      Apache is one of the most thorough open source projects when it comes to ensuring we have clear rights for the works we distribute.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Obviously I don't have proof of every developer's identity. The major projects generally do, however, use some sort of public-key ID to make sure they know who their folks are. Debian does ID their developers as part of the key-signing process. Thus I've looked over a number of developers passports and drivers licenses.

        So, if one of those people committed some sort of deliberate crime like inserting a trojan, or uploading their employers code without permission in a way that seriously messes up the project,

  • Let it slip out (Score:3, Interesting)

    by m50d (797211) on Monday November 17 2008, @02:22PM (#25790037) Homepage Journal
    I found some horrible prejudice when I submitted things under my real name, so I'll always use a pseudonym for my first few patches. But while I never actually *stop* using the pseudonym, I'll gradually start e.g. signing emails with my real name; that avoids trouble and lets me get some credit for my actual self.
  • Either one is fine (Score:5, Insightful)

    by IGnatius T Foobar (4328) on Monday November 17 2008, @02:25PM (#25790089) Homepage Journal
    In the open source community it really does seem that either one is fine. This isn't like the old days of D00DZ and WAREZ and C0DEZ where you used your handle to keep the feds from figuring out who you really were. Nowadays it's more of a tradition. Most people are going to be able to match your real name and your screen name, and that's fine. I do a lot of development using both, and people are generally cool with it.

    That's strictly in the online sphere, though. If you're sitting in someone's office working out a consulting contract to build some open source software then yeah, your business card had better have your birth name on it if you want to be taken seriously.
  • What about PGP? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bkazaz_gr (1409357) on Monday November 17 2008, @02:49PM (#25790475)
    What if you generate a PGP key and use it's ID as you "name". In that case, anyone holding the private key is essentially the copyright holder, right? ;-)
  • by drix (4602) on Monday November 17 2008, @04:11PM (#25791825) Homepage

    Contribute using the SHA1 hash of your real name as your anonymous nickname. If you ever want to be identified you can verify that it was you who made the contributions.

    • by clone53421 (1310749) on Monday November 17 2008, @04:33PM (#25792257) Journal

      Heck, you could use the SHA1 hash of most near anything. The fact that you have the correct input string to yield that SHA1 hash should be enough to convince just about anyone, provided it's not something stupid like "password1".

      That said, your name would be easy to remember...