[lowbloodsugar]

You misunderstand. When he wrote the code, which was related to the company's business, the company owned it. Even in California. He couldn't have "intent to donate the code" because he didn't own it in the first place. The fact that he "intended to donate it" demonstrates that it was related to the company's business.

From a practical perspective, even if you think they don't own it, do you have the money to argue that in court if they decide that they do?

IANAL. If you are having issues like this, get legal advice from a lawyer. Not HN.

[Dylan16807]

> which was related to the company's business

Relatedness is relative but I'd argue against it here. They didn't have functionality like that, and they didn't want it.

> The fact that he "intended to donate it" demonstrates that it was related to the company's business.

...yes, that's my point. We're using that intent to make the decision that it's covered. That doesn't seem like a good way to decide whether it's covered.

If he just made a web spreadsheet and did nothing else, people would shrug.