This Intellectual Property Agreement clarifies the ownership of intellectual property (IP) created by an employee during their employment. It defines what IP belongs to the company and what remains with the employee, while also granting the company a license to use the employee's personal IP under specific conditions. The agreement aims to protect the company's assets while respecting the employee's personal projects.

This document is a Code of Conduct for project contributors and maintainers. It outlines expected behaviors to create a welcoming and harassment-free environment, detailing both acceptable and unacceptable conduct. It also defines the responsibilities of project maintainers in enforcing these standards.

The Balanced Employee IP Agreement (BEIPA) is an open-source template designed to address intellectual property ownership between employers and employees. It provides a framework for managing IP created during employment, aiming for a fair and balanced approach that can be adapted for various jurisdictions.

This document outlines GitHub's policy against bullying, harassment, and abuse on its platform. It defines various forms of prohibited conduct, such as targeted personal attacks and intimidation, and clarifies what actions, like disagreeing with users, are generally not considered harassment. The policy aims to foster a respectful environment for all users.

This template outlines a Balanced Employee IP Agreement (BEIPA), designed to fairly allocate intellectual property rights between an employer and employee. It grants the company exclusive control over IP created within the scope of employment, while employees retain ownership of personal projects unrelated to the business. For related but out-of-scope IP, the employee owns it, and the company receives a non-exclusive license, promoting employee autonomy and innovation.

This document outlines the acceptable use policies for GitHub, detailing rules for user content and conduct to foster a safe and collaborative environment. It covers restrictions related to user safety, intellectual property, privacy, authenticity, spam, and appropriate use of the service. Users must comply with these policies to ensure good faith collaboration on the platform.

This document outlines GitHub's policy regarding active malware and exploits on its platform. It clarifies that using GitHub for unlawful attacks is prohibited, while also supporting the publication of dual-use content for security research. The policy details conditions under which content might be restricted and provides an appeals process for users.

This document outlines GitHub's policy on behaviors that disrupt the experience of other users, such as posting off-topic comments or creating meaningless issues. It serves as a guideline for acceptable conduct within the GitHub community, emphasizing respectful interaction and platform usage. GitHub staff may take action against accounts that violate these rules. This policy is also linked to broader acceptable use and anti-harassment policies. This is a template, not a specific executed document, so extract template-level information only. This is a template analysis - extract generic metadata about the template type and structure, not specific party names or details. JSON Output Requirements: { "summary": "string (2-3 sentences, minimal markdown)", "description": "string (brief one-line description)", "categories": ["string array (max 5 items)"], "jurisdictions": ["string array"], "parties": ["string array (template roles only)"], "complexity": "beginner | intermediate | advanced", "confidence": { "summary": "number (0-1 float)", "description": "number (0-1 float)", "categories": "number (0-1 float)", "jurisdictions": "number (0-1 float)", "parties": "number (0-1 float)", "complexity": "number (0-1 float)", "overall": "number (0-1 float)" } } Detailed Instructions for Each Field: 1. summary (2-3 sentences, minimal markdown): - Write a brief, user-facing summary that explains what the document is and its main purpose - Use plain, accessible language that non-lawyers can understand - Include only essential information that helps users identify if this document meets their needs - Use minimal markdown formatting (e.g. **bold** for emphasis where necessary) - Keep it concise and conversational 2. description (one-line): - Provide a concise, descriptive title for the template - Include the document type and key context - Example: "Mutual non-disclosure agreement for business partnerships" 3. categories (max 5 items): - Select ONLY from this allowed list (use exact IDs, lowercase): accounting, administrative law and judicial review, arbitration, banking and finance, acquisition, asset finance, construction & development finance, crowdfunding, debt finance, pre-seed & seed funding, charities, subcontractor agreements, service agreements, sale & distribution agreements, confidentiality & non-disclosure agreements, terms of business, supply of goods agreements, joint venture agreements, franchise law, commercial contracts, agency agreements, competition, conflict of laws, construction & development finance, construction & engineering contracts, construction & engineering disputes, consumer law, b corp conversion, corporate governance, corporate restructuring, enterprise investment schemes (eis) & seed enterprise investment scheme (seis), employee share schemes and equity incentives solicitors, exits and disposals, limited liability partnership agreements, mergers & acquisitions (m&a), private equity, share capital, corporate, corporate crime, crime, dispute resolution, cybersecurity, data breaches & incident management, data governance, policies, employment contracts, exits & reorganisations, settlement agreements, transactions and tupe, environment, share options, family, financial services, health and safety, health law, human rights and civil liberties, immigration, information law, insurance, copyright, intellectual property disputes, intellectual property licensing, trade marks, local government, pensions, personal injury and clinical negligence, planning, practice management, private client, professions and ethics, property, property disputes, public law, restructuring and insolvency, securities, share incentives, tax, cloud service agreements, cybersecurity, saas agreements, software licence agreements, service level agreements - Choose the most relevant categories that describe the document's purpose - Order by relevance (most relevant first) 4. jurisdictions: - Select ONLY from this allowed list (use exact IDs, lowercase): usa jurisdiction, new york, california, texas, illinois, delaware, massachusetts, new jersey, pennsylvania, virginia, washington, georgia, michigan, ohio, north carolina, florida, united kingdom, china, germany, france, japan, switzerland, netherlands, singapore, hong kong, australia, canada, luxembourg, ireland, united arab emirates, india, brazil, russia, south korea, spain - Include all jurisdictions explicitly mentioned or referenced in the document - Leave empty if no specific jurisdiction is mentioned 5. parties (template roles only): - List the TYPES/ROLES of parties in the template - Examples: "employer", "employee", "contractor", "client", "licensor", "licensee", "landlord", "tenant" - DO NOT include specific names or organizations - Focus on the relationship structure 6. complexity: - beginner: Simple structure, standard clauses, plain language, typically < 5 pages - intermediate: Moderate complexity, some specialized terms, optional clauses, 5-20 pages - advanced: Complex provisions, extensive cross-references, specialized legal language, > 20 pages - Must be EXACTLY one of: "beginner", "intermediate", "advanced" 7. confidence (0-1 float scores indicating model certainty): - Return confidence values (0-1 float) indicating your certainty for each field - summary: How confident you are in the summary quality and completeness - description: How confident you are in the description accuracy - categories: How confident you are in category selection and relevance - jurisdictions: How confident you are in jurisdiction identification - parties: How confident you are in party type identification - complexity: How confident you are in complexity assessment - overall: Overall confidence in the entire analysis (average or weighted score) - Use higher scores (0.8-1.0) when information is clear and unambiguous - Use lower scores (0.3-0.7) when information is unclear or requires inference - Use very low scores (0.0-0.3) when information is missing or highly uncertain Analysis Guidelines: - Pay attention to document structure and organization - Identify the primary legal relationship being established - Note any industry-specific terminology - Consider the level of legal sophistication required - Extract party roles from template placeholders and context - Look for jurisdiction references in governing law clauses Important Notes: - If the document doesn't appear to be a legal template (e.g., contains only metadata, JSON structures, or non-legal content), return empty values for all fields: - Use empty string ("") for summary, description, and complexity - Use empty array ([]) for categories, jurisdictions, and parties - Use 0.0 for all confidence scores - If a field cannot be determined with confidence, use empty string for text fields or empty array for lists - Never include explanatory text about why the document is invalid - just return empty values - Never include specific party names, only template roles - Ensure all category and jurisdiction IDs are from the allowed lists - The summary should be user-friendly and help someone quickly understand what the document is for ---- Legal Document Template Content ---- # **GitHub Disrupting the Experience of Other Users** Being part of a community includes recognizing how your behavior affects others and engaging in meaningful and productive interactions with people and the platform they rely on. We do not allow behavior that significantly or continually disrupts the experience of other users. This includes: * Posting off-topic comments * Opening empty or meaningless issues or pull requests * Starring and/or following accounts or repositories in large volume in a short period of time * Creating nonsensical or irrelevant code reviews * Engaging with platform features in a way that causes excessive notifications for other users * Using any other platform feature in a way that creates disruption While we encourage maintainers to moderate their own projects on an individual basis, GitHub staff may take further restrictive action against accounts that are engaging in these types of behaviors. Please note that the above conduct may also violate other restrictions in our [Acceptable Use Policies](/site-policy/acceptable-use-policies/github-acceptable-use-policies). For example, depending on the nature and severity of the activity, it may rise to the level of [bullying and harassment](/site-policy/acceptable-use-policies/github-bullying-and-harassment). ```gitlaw-json2 {

This document outlines GitHub's policy against hate speech and discrimination on its platform. It details various forms of prohibited conduct, such as mocking, promoting hate groups, and using harmful stereotypes. The policy aims to create a safe and welcoming environment for all users by actively fighting hate-based abuse.