Real Name For Open Source Development? 262
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?"
probably overkill (Score:5, Informative)
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...
Another Con (Score:5, Informative)
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:Real, of course. (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.
Staying off the radar... heh heh (Score:2, Informative)
Re:probably overkill (Score:3, Informative)
Re:probably overkill (Score:5, Informative)
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:Another Con (Score:5, Informative)
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:4, Informative)
Any case not related to the companies direct business would not be allowed to proceed.
Re:Another Con (Score:1, Informative)
This is Slashdot ... your legally sound post has no place here.
Apache does this right. (Score:4, Informative)
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:probably overkill (Score:5, Informative)
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...