[levlandau]

Cofounder here. Really appreciate the discussion and all of the feedback. The spirit of the contract's never been intended to be unreasonably restrictive -- though I totally understand the concern. We wanted to include certain terms since as part of our model, we do own the code written specifically for Gigster projects. We certainly don't want to own code folks write outside of Gigster projects.

We've received very similar feedback recently and were going to do a review of the contract with our lawyers highlighting this specific issue. We'll also consider adding an FAQ around any contract nuances. We care about doing what is fair and while a lot of terms here are standard we'll try to review terms to make our position much clearer. Will share important updates.

Thanks

[danpalmer]

If this comment had been the last email response in the chain, I think that would have been great.

The fact that it wasn't, that an important issue was dismissed when raised in private, speaks far more to me than this public response.

[ghurtado]

Damage control.

They went from "lol, you're the only one with a problem, get lost!" to "hmmm, this is generating bad publicity.. now we definitely sympathize with your concerns!" real quick.

As far as I'm concerned, I now know all I will ever need to know about Gigster.

Your reputation is something that takes a lifetime to build and only 5 minutes to ruin permanently.

[hluska]

> Your reputation is something that takes a lifetime to build and only 5 minutes to ruin permanently.

This is the most important takeaway from this entire sad thread. Wonderful comment!

[ghurtado]

Thanks! But let me make sure I properly credit Warren Buffett for it :)

[1024core]

> Your reputation is something that takes a lifetime to build and only 5 minutes to ruin permanently.

A quote I read somewhere recently: your reputation grows like a coconut tree, but fall like a coconut.

[moflome]

Hi, Debo gave me a similar response... used my own SOW contract at the time but haven't applied to work with Gigster since you instituted the new terms.

What you're missing is are two clauses regarding clear indemnification of the contractor, especially as it relates to pre-existing code, and two, clarifying IP ownership on that same pre-existing code. Gigster seems to pre-suppose that any pre-existing IP the contractor uses in the course of completing the contract is somehow assigned as property of Gigster upon execution of the contract. This is crazy.

[mildbow]

I have no horse in the race, but this response feels a lot like you handling the situation vs actually caring about being unfair to developers.

Once you do get the new version of the contract, I suggest you read it from a random developers point to view. Maybe even have a "Show HN". Aim for reasonably unrestrictive? Because of this blunder, you now have more to prove! You wont have much of a marketplace if developers don't feel valued.

Why is a FAQ about your contract required? Isn't the contract the canonical agreement? Are you, in case of legal trouble, going to refer to both the FAQ and/or the contract? Seems a bit weird to me.

ps: I've found "standard" contracts are what everyone says when talking about their own contracts.

[harness_up]

If I have this straight, your terms of service grants you exclusive ownership of any work done by a developer in your employ. Correct? What about customers? The projects that you're taking on are driven by client requests. Do they own their website, app, or whatever after the project ends?

[danielweber]

> We've received very similar feedback recently

So why was the line "We have yet to have a disagreement (much less a legal battle) over the terms here" issued to the developer?

[ilaksh]

It says

    > does not contain any third-party software, including without limitation, “open source,” “copy left,” “public” or other similar code or anything derived from or based on any of the foregoing

which absolutely, _obviously_ means you _do_ want to own or exclude code folks write outside of Gigster projects, since it says it can't contain open source code or be derived from or based on open source code. This is ludicrous -- almost every modern hardware or software product contains or is based on some open source or public code, including Macs (BSD code or BSD-derived code at core) all Android phones (all Android operating systems include and/or derived from open-source Android software), almost all web sites (based on/contains/derived from open source software like Wordpress etc.)

So, since you left that clause in there, you either fundamentally do not understand how modern software is built, or you do, and you thought that it was OK to pretend that it doesn't work that way and maybe somehow you could hold the developers responsible for the 'misunderstanding' if anyone called you on it.

[ballenf]

So either your lawyers wrote terms against your request or you originally thought it would have been cool to own it all.

Or you have incompetent lawyers. None of the above really reflect well on you.

[adekok]

> we do own the code written specifically for Gigster projects.

That's good.

> We certainly don't want to own code folks write outside of Gigster projects.

That's good.

But the contract apparently says something else.

This reminds me of a contract gig I had a while ago. I asked them similar questions about their contract, and they said "that's not what we intend to do". OK... so could they update the contract to state their real intentions?

A: No.

OK. I don't need the work that badly. If the contract starts with bad terms and them lying to me, there isn't much reason to move forward.

[BinaryIdiot]

I mean, what would you like them to do? They're aware of it (and this thread obviously shined a brighter light on it) and are going to go over it with their lawyers. Isn't that reasonable? Contract changes don't exactly come quickly especially with expensive lawyers involved.

I'm just not sure what you would like them to do about it right now.

[adekok]

> I'm just not sure what you would like them to do about it right now.

The point is that when the contractor asked for changes, he got told to go stuff himself. It's only when there's larger publicity that they suggested the contract can change.

And, TBH, it's ridiculous to construe my argument as they have to change right now.

They were asked to change, and they refused. That's a problem. What part of that do you not understand?

[BinaryIdiot]

I fail to see how I did anything to your argument. The original poster showed the email, the founder responded saying they're going to review the contracts because what's in there is not their intent, figure it out and then add a FAQ. You replied to the founder with a simple regurgitation of the issue and nothing more. The issue the founder just said they will be addressing in the comment you replied to.

So I wasn't sure what you wanted your comment to accomplish. Sounded like it wasn't fast enough but if that's not the case what do you actually want from this conversation with the founder? Do you want him to apologize to you? Do you want them to issue a public apology? What was your goal to avoid me from construing your argument any further?

[hluska]

You seem to be so focused on making your point that you have stopped reading the comments you are replying to.

At no point did the parent say that Gigster had to change right now. Rather, the parent made some reasonable points:

A.) Smart developers would not sign shitty contracts.

B.) When a smart developer asked questions about the contract, his questions were flat out ignored.

C.) Now that there is an outcry, the founder claims he will 'review' the contract.

If the founder had gotten involved in the support case, the response would be reasonable. Now, it stinks of a founder doing damage control.

[BinaryIdiot]

> You seem to be so focused on making your point that you have stopped reading the comments you are replying to.

I disagree and felt I had already made my point and was attempting to clarify. But that's okay. Maybe I didn't convey it well enough?

I find emoting and conveying discussion points over a forum style doesn't always carry what my intent is and sometimes comes off wrong. Thanks for the feedback.

[adekok]

> At no point did the parent say that Gigster had to change right now

BinaryIdiot seems to be implying that I asked for Gigster to change right now.

And then there's this bizarre comment by him:

> > what do you actually want from this conversation with the founder?

I could similarly ask him what he wants from engaging with me.

> > Do you want him to apologize to you? Do you want them to issue a public apology

That's a telling level of projection. He's entirely unable to read English text as written.

Instead, he's like the 1950's fuddy-duddy who sees a picture of two people hugging, and immediately concludes that they're about to go fornicate as unmarried adults.

[x1798DE]

Honestly, it seems like they're doing the right thing now, but it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if the answer to this is, "They shouldn't have put it there in the first place."

Yes, it's probably some stock-standard boilerplate contract, but if companies can write contracts that contractors accept only on the assumption that they'll never be enforced, then when someone calls them out for it, they get to say, "Oh, people hate this? We'll change it (now).", what gives people the incentive to start with reasonble terms.

[BinaryIdiot]

> it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if the answer to this is, "They shouldn't have put it there in the first place."

Maybe? If you say a clause shouldn't be in there couldn't a lawyer immediately take you to court and get the document invalidated?

I wouldn't rush to saying anything about the contract IMO.

> Yes, it's probably some stock-standard boilerplate contract, but if companies can write contracts that contractors accept only on the assumption that they'll never be enforced, then when someone calls them out for it, they get to say, "Oh, people hate this? We'll change it (now).", what gives people the incentive to start with reasonble terms.

Gigster is a YC company so "move fast, break things" etc. They probably went with what was the fastest / cheapest at the time, no one had an issue with it and it was never brought up.

[x1798DE]

My point was that there's not always something to be done "now", and sometimes when you "break things" it, shockingly, has negative consequences that forward-looking changes can't necessarily undo.