Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1vdrqJ-005uuQ-2A for pgsql-advocacy@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2026 15:22:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1vdrqH-002dPQ-1r for pgsql-advocacy@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2026 15:22:30 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1vdrqH-002dPH-0d for pgsql-advocacy@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2026 15:22:30 +0000 Received: from mail-yx1-xb132.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::b132]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1vdrqG-004uEH-0L for pgsql-advocacy@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2026 15:22:28 +0000 Received: by mail-yx1-xb132.google.com with SMTP id 956f58d0204a3-6446c1a7a1cso2845186d50.3 for ; Thu, 08 Jan 2026 07:22:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hagander.net; s=mail; t=1767885747; x=1768490547; darn=lists.postgresql.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=mrw42OUIHogej/Hr//G+fTkgmrbBU015cpeXXQntu7A=; b=TTgcqHpcQOevz2XfaYIIOqvfFBkHdtYCqQUmyzniJjIzvew4IQVTUVVZyRW2lp7LVN loFcUkzqzBhX5qo3wac7Ff+MtnAYq6PfAZdHTYLchoMaeWeySiz8dub0HX8To/OQeccm qvUf7dyrW/umxoFMabdkyuO1jwxr7HGBu9c2E0pbbqRQf7S5/Ydl6+KDnlP+m8lpYtqz 0+6T3dgq9Gea/5kQJ9xNyDbmMVpHBEB5H9dmE6lto24aWVx2HZXI29j4v4XvH4wy+a+Y gE8st/EnC7Jsn6fRROeJ/XaEzKXGIY6bqjD2U4scpTTifAUO8L/XkUHQ5bmeoUnk7yTW j13A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1767885747; x=1768490547; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=mrw42OUIHogej/Hr//G+fTkgmrbBU015cpeXXQntu7A=; b=LpLIpIYsIxj404ewmxq7GnsXwq/nxZePyuN4osRDHrYxmV/vfdo5mhCeTVMBoXJR59 xYcJX6EJEikub8Oe6abmxj5rzX5BPm1EFLR3/xebjkj3HBhgF6EcPQ6XAYHteuAWqWP/ ka4PuoF8eaNIVXcvkZVsyWnOlZAe372q1/I7ihvCwXooqtml5Y23VwzvzojaPDz7X6Om SfnsKynUQUV/JCFmPGX25a1egBOUGsXx8hRo+etEfk6JRmACqY6aKMWCYsxK+CeqqpNi ayHjLOoiiSjSB10rW9CeJqHWrQvCTk+6QlHlIoUeEBD2VRG3SgAdniaiH7fYgpaPkBDl cPTg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXFHnqTVsAABrH+vxVq4Q8oSsp126Lgwt2Tt5+J+jGtThQu06oyUlH2SQ91CcrhFe6L1YuMPY8PxV9KdGiU3g==@lists.postgresql.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxFC8+PdoOeobBX1BmUhZXsSIX3bf4h16q7NDAduJ9AzQorjLbV FihCUN1A/MXIOKgjKjOYhDICsS78vJ7kgfzG+RtOpiTnF+4HG2IdbTjfOA3dpubWdN2f3th/Bro vH/n44JWCeNzZjg+oMF7TPpW15I9wQ6glskXGeZbJ X-Gm-Gg: AY/fxX4qnqd+j/6PPD634ycP3FXjDv1G5X8mt9mmnTpJu5sbpxxinIJ/RF6bntk8j5s oXNgV00IZKPHJYOTTHeY7t4cdJPMdYyg6RbE4FN8rfmizyX3kb2ISvAFZ7ZP7hcvdHzI+47lg18 M45TeajdtCedCBijQmCUAUEF2Ha/Jrmk1JVaKENQRWC0fBqS84flxk6+IHSvjHxXDHWDaAglEfj 0b7HLJz5LJc6AQYv7HeHYdCcUsjCHb0Nj1QxqDO6yNSOjO4cLXJ4BkkyeD2aCvGx4t19Eqp9z6h n26D3gpyrGTHI4uhj/jk6lDHt4FSjhYaufaHACM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHga5s/Skz58w8X7GbgcUBqSf0b65GSbYLbHg2hx1nFNyKZuodBcPhUVTDc+dc3RATYehyD7gu7+UxIzun14k4= X-Received: by 2002:a05:690e:390:b0:644:444f:3bd1 with SMTP id 956f58d0204a3-64716c3c950mr4397123d50.68.1767885746883; Thu, 08 Jan 2026 07:22:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Magnus Hagander Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2026 16:22:14 +0100 X-Gm-Features: AQt7F2rlfogMH1WTU6jgaI9fSWB7MysgQMtmOFZ9ZQctXNPoWqoQnvRChv9Q1jI Message-ID: Subject: Re: Non-Compete Challenges for Community Work To: Bruce Momjian Cc: Dave Page , Robert Haas , Umair Shahid , Greg Sabino Mullane , Cornelia Biacsics , pgsql-advocacy@lists.postgresql.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f25c7a0647e1f910" List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk --000000000000f25c7a0647e1f910 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 at 16:16, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 04:14:08PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 at 19:47, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 31, 2025 at 02:17:10PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > I don't know if things are improving and we can ignore the issue, > or if > > > there is some action that can be taken. Ideas are: > > > > > > * New employees should read employment contracts and ideally have > them > > > reviewed by an employment lawyer. It might be difficult, but > not > > > being able to find a suitable job for a year is clearly worse. > > > > > > * Somehow incentivize companies to limit their non-compete > restrictions > > > to be more limited, and hopefully not block community > involvement. > > > > I think a question is whether it is wise for the community to be > > influencing how companies specify compete restrictions in their > > employment contracts. Even if the community were successful in > making > > changes that are positive for employees, is this an overreach for the > > community? > > > > An idea would be to allow companies to voluntarily submit their > > non-compete clauses to the community for approval to be listed on > some > > community fair-employment page. Would any company do that? > > > > Regardless of whether the companies would, I think that's a really bad > idea. It > > would amount to us giving what would potentially be seen as legal advice > in > > basically all different jurisdictions around the world. We should > definitely > > not get into that. > > > > Having some generic recommendations for either not having non-compete > clauses > > or explicitly excluding OSS contributions from it is reasonable, but we > don't > > want to review any actual texts IMNSHO. > > I was thinking we would allow them to be posted publicly, rather than us > reviewing them, though it seems even less likely they would do this. > Oh, just like a list of them basically? "If you go to work for here's what it might look like" but with no judging or comments from the community? Yeah, I think that's very unlikely that companies will be interested in that. And even if they are, I bet they wouldn't update them as their templates change anyway... //Magnus --000000000000f25c7a0647e1f910 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Thu, 8 Jan 2= 026 at 16:16, Bruce Momjian <bruce@m= omjian.us> wrote:
On Thu, Jan=C2=A0 8, 2026 at 04:14:08PM +0100, Magnus Hagander w= rote:
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 at 19:47, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0On Wed, Dec 31, 2025 at 02:17:10PM -0500, Bruce Mom= jian wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> I don't know if things are improving and w= e can ignore the issue, or if
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> there is some action that can be taken.=C2=A0 = Ideas are:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> *=C2=A0 New employees should read employment c= ontracts and ideally have them
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 reviewed by an employment lawyer.= =C2=A0 It might be difficult, but not
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 being able to find a suitable job= for a year is clearly worse.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> *=C2=A0 Somehow incentivize companies to limit= their non-compete restrictions
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 to be more limited, and hopefully= not block community involvement.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0I think a question is whether it is wise for the co= mmunity to be
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0influencing how companies specify compete restricti= ons in their
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0employment contracts.=C2=A0 Even if the community w= ere successful in making
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0changes that are positive for employees, is this an= overreach for the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0community?
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0An idea would be to allow companies to voluntarily = submit their
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0non-compete clauses to the community for approval t= o be listed on some
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0community fair-employment page.=C2=A0 Would any com= pany do that?
>
> Regardless of whether the companies would, I think that's a really= bad idea. It
> would amount to us giving what would potentially be seen as legal advi= ce in
> basically all different jurisdictions around the world. We should defi= nitely
> not get into that.
>
> Having some generic recommendations for either not having non-compete = clauses
> or explicitly excluding OSS contributions from it is reasonable, but w= e don't
> want to review any actual texts IMNSHO.

I was thinking we would allow them to be posted publicly, rather than us reviewing them, though it seems even less likely they would do this.

Oh, just like a list of them basically? "= ;If you go to work for <x> here's what it might look like" b= ut with no judging or comments from the community?

=
Yeah, I think that's very unlikely that companies will be interest= ed in that. And even if they are, I bet they wouldn't update them as th= eir templates change anyway...=C2=A0

//Magnus

--000000000000f25c7a0647e1f910--