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.)
Conversation
This is different depending on the laws of the country but for Canada it is understood that an employer owns the IP of an employee unless otherwise noted.
1
It should be noted that the copyright of CopperheadOS belongs to Copperhead.
2
Two things:
A) I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not going to comment authoritatively, just sharing my understanding as a founder who explicitly noted what IP/ Copyright I was handing over.
B) I'm on Daniel's side regardless
2
2
James explicitly acknowledged on multiple occasions that I controlled / owned the project including the donations and all the code I had written before and after incorporating the company. There's no contract or employment agreement. He doesn't even try to refute these facts.
1
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
Those are the only 2 formal legal agreements. Anything else was just conversations / agreements between us and in those he explicitly acknowledged on multiple occasions that it's my project, my code and my donations to use as I saw fit. How about he responds to those facts.
1
was there for signing the incorporation agreement and was cut out of the picture for the shareholder's agreement due to him not being active at the time. Many other people were around and watched the project from early on. We were always quite transparent about the setup.
1
It's not 2 people with different stories. It's 1 person (myself) with a story that many people can back up and which matches the facts and public record, and a fraudster with a story that keeps changing and doesn't match what everyone else saw at the time, including people who...
1
2
... had their donations stolen by James rather than them making their way to the developer of the open source project as was supposed to happen. Lots of people were around watching the project since 2014 long before the company was incorporated and some people including ...
... know what actually happened from the inside. It was an open source project from the start. The company was supposed to earn money from contract work and making proprietary forks. Was explicitly agreed upon that it'd be open source without copyright assignment. Very explicit.