[ErroneousBosh]

> Sounds like he's getting paid to work on the same thing by a slightly different stakeholder.

This honestly sounds like the sort of thing I'd sit down with the employee, their new employer, and various "Compliance Team" members, and firm up a bit.

Sounds good for everyone.

We get our bugs fixed, $vendor gets to say "Well we have this thing that was developed in-house for BoshNet, that might solve your problem too, it's going to cost you <some comical amount>", and everyone's happy.

[lazide]

No company with a legal rep is going to be happy with that situation - ever.

Who even owns the code the person is working on? Who is responsible when it goes wrong?

[panflute]

Never happy is a bit of an exaggeration. SYSV UNIX had all of these risks and various legal departments went through them as they do regularly for more typical types of research.

[lazide]

When it was explicit, and part of the relationship, sure. Because those questions aren’t questions.

[ErroneousBosh]

Which is why I said you'd sit everyone down and thrash it out.

[pbronez]

That’s the “firming up” bit. You have a contract that deems the code “work for hire” even though the money flow is wonky. Legally the guy is like any 1099.