Conversation

Replying to

The current "product" is a recreation with none of the original security properties the reputation implies.

Jun 15, 2020

Replying to

Also false. I really hope you take your technical research more seriously than your understanding of software licensing and copyright.

This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more

Replying to

and

On the contrary that's actually what the contract between the partners (not employee vs owner) said. Company was funding development of open source code and handling the commercialization of it.

This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more

Replying to

and

I never had any contracts or employment agreement with Copperhead and there was never any copyright assignment. They have no commercial license to use the code they forked either. The original repositories are mine on GitHub. They forked my project, not the other way around.

Replying to

and

It was an open source project. Copperhead was a sponsor of that project. I currently own 50% of Copperhead and I am speaking as someone that controls 50% of the voting shares. No contract, no employment agreement, no copyright assignment. Explicit agreement that I owned the code.

Replying to

and

It was very explicitly agreed upon that it was my open source project. I controlled it and owned all of my work on it. Every commit that I made listed me as the author/owner via my personal email address. There was of course never a notice listing Copperhead as owning code.

6:02 PM · Jun 15, 2020Twitter Web App

Replying to

and

It was EXPLICITLY AGREED on multiple occasions that I owned and controlled the project, and that donations to the open source project were donations to me, not the company. That was a clear condition of their involvement. They don't have any special license to use my work either.