Trust your gut feel. This doesn’t sound right at all. For a short term contract, you need to know that they have thought out exactly what they expect from you in the time available. And it doesn’t seem that this has happened.
I’m especially sus about how they might define whether what I create during the period of employment, in my own personal time, on my own hardware/software, is relevant to the business operations and therefore they can lay claim on it. When my tasks are so vague.
I get that IP clauses are not uncommon (although not present in my previous contracts!) - but the way they’ve worded this really grinds my gears because (a) they rely extensively on open source software and have never spent a red cent contributing to it, and (b) a good part of the solutions I’ve come up with for the business have been based off publicly available code and answers on stackexchange, github and the like - from people helping each other out on their own time (Much of that extra research being shit I’ve learned on my own time as well)
Now they want to turn around and potentially stop me from giving back to those same communities? Grrr.
I agree with Bacon - lotsa red flags flapping here. A lawyer sounds like a worthwhile investment. If only to clarify exactly what the contract is specifying. There are directories for finding a suitable lawyer, and the Law Institute of Victoria is one of the better ones.
Thank you both. After running it past a few friends and family members they agree it’s worth getting it looked at professionally. I’d be prepared to just walk away now if it weren’t for the fact that I’d like to help my colleagues, but if the contract is sus and there’s too much involved to get it ironed out then I’ll walk anyway.
Trust your gut feel. This doesn’t sound right at all. For a short term contract, you need to know that they have thought out exactly what they expect from you in the time available. And it doesn’t seem that this has happened.
I’m especially sus about how they might define whether what I create during the period of employment, in my own personal time, on my own hardware/software, is relevant to the business operations and therefore they can lay claim on it. When my tasks are so vague.
I get that IP clauses are not uncommon (although not present in my previous contracts!) - but the way they’ve worded this really grinds my gears because (a) they rely extensively on open source software and have never spent a red cent contributing to it, and (b) a good part of the solutions I’ve come up with for the business have been based off publicly available code and answers on stackexchange, github and the like - from people helping each other out on their own time (Much of that extra research being shit I’ve learned on my own time as well)
Now they want to turn around and potentially stop me from giving back to those same communities? Grrr.
I agree with Bacon - lotsa red flags flapping here. A lawyer sounds like a worthwhile investment. If only to clarify exactly what the contract is specifying. There are directories for finding a suitable lawyer, and the Law Institute of Victoria is one of the better ones.
Thank you both. After running it past a few friends and family members they agree it’s worth getting it looked at professionally. I’d be prepared to just walk away now if it weren’t for the fact that I’d like to help my colleagues, but if the contract is sus and there’s too much involved to get it ironed out then I’ll walk anyway.