Conversation

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.
1
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
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?
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
He just bullshits around the actual issues. Facts: no work contacts, no employment agreement, no copyright assignment, no licensing agreement. He doesn't even dispute that. At most he peddles some bullshit that despite us both paying $500 per the shareholder's agreement...
1
1
... he thinks that I somehow assigned my open source work to the company as part of paying the same amount of money as him for the same amount of shares. Shareholder's agreement made no mention of any code of the open source project. Incorporation certainly didn't do it either.
1
Show replies