Well I had kind of the reverse situation: I wanted to contribute to Cygwin, owned by RedHat. RedHat would not accept my contributions unless I got a signed release from my employer, IBM at the time. Well I tried to get this signed release, but all I got was the run-around. Nobody would bother taking the risk. It's one of the reasons I left.
It's their free time, they can do whatever they want with it. If there is something unlawful or disloyal well then you deal with that situation, but you can't tell someone "I will tell you what you can do in your free time just in case you may do something I don't like".
Also, let's be honest, how much harm can a 1 person project do to a multi billion corp? It's a fallacy.
> Doesn’t it bother you that you have to ask some manager if you can do something (a side project) in your free time?
Not at all. A salaried position comes with more open-ended expectations than an hourly position.
Besides, why the resistance to simply asking making it open and honest and the boundaries clear? My agreements on those things tended to be 2 or 3 sentences. I'd sign it, I'd get a veep to sign it, make a copy, and file it away.
Do you also ask them for permission when you want to go biking? Visit your mother? Throw a party? Draw a picture? Contribute to an open-source project? Smoke a cigarette? Build a gadget? Buy a house? Have a child?
What an employee does in their own time is 0 business of the employer, none of the above is different from the others in kind.
Oh come on. That's certainly not what Walter was implying. It is any project that may have a potential current or future overlap with the company's plans or products.
It sounds as you are their slave, and not an employee who works x hours per month for y amount of money.
Imagine a baker that has to ask the boss if he/she can bake a loaf of bread at home