Conversation
For those who don't know, the actual CopperheadOS ceased to exist a few years ago after the business side partner tried to force the developer to give feds backdoor keys, then fraudulently asserted IP ownership.
4
3
15
The current "product" is a recreation with none of the original security properties the reputation implies.
1
8
Replying to
Also false. I really hope you take your technical research more seriously than your understanding of software licensing and copyright.
1
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Copyright for the code was absolutely never assigned to Copperhead and was not written under any contract or employment agreement. There was absolutely no contract that would have given Copperhead ownership over my open source work.
1
2
So, what contract are you talking about? There was only an incorporation and shareholder's agreement. This was long after the creation of the project (look at the timeline for yourself) and did not hand over anything to the company. I paid the same money James did for my shares.
1
1
A company doesn't magically get ownership over my open source work from being associated with me and agreeing to sponsor some of my work. Google sponsored the same work, as did others. How exactly does Copperhead magically own years of my open source work James agreed was mine?
Yep. Your copyright is not assigned to the company just because you've incorporated it.
That *can* happen, but it's not implicit.
That would be like your house belonging to the company just because you founded it. Doesn't make any sense.
1
2
Well, maybe not like your house. Because the code is probably considered business critical, it wouldn't be crazy to have it included *explicitly* for that reason. But it would be explicit.
(Not a lawyer, but started a company, and this was my understanding as I went through it.)
2
2
Show replies