Wow, I'm late to this, but having a lawyer send a letter to a student's university to try to get them in trouble for open source contributions they made on their own time is very not ok.
Conversation
Replying to
Hard to tell as an outsider who's right about the original issue in the thread (i.e. not this letter portion), but not 20 minutes ago the same person shameforwarded someone's tweet to their employer so it doesn't seem like they've learned much about proper discourse
3
1
8
Replying to
I mean, it's not that hard to form a weak opinion on the original issue, but holy shit you don't lawyer-letter a PhD student's university. Fuck that. I wouldn't care even if he was right.
2
2
26
He did this to because he helped with porting my open source work on hardening Bionic libc to a newer version of Android. The work was published under open source licenses and I'm the author and owner of it. Copperhead agreed to sponsor my work under those terms.
2
2
17
It's possible to look at archives of it on GitHub and see that it was published that way. I temporarily re-licensed my work under a non-commercial usage license from January 2017 to around June 2018. I never assigned copyright to the company, and my project predates the company.
Their position is that they somehow magically got copyright ownership over the entirety of my past, present and future work without any agreement of that kind. It goes against the explicit agreements we had that developers owned their work. That is what we told people too.
1
1
7
And by the way, I'm a co-founder of Copperhead, and I still own 50% of the shares. They try to portray me as some disgruntled former employee. I never had an employment agreement or salary. It's as much my company as the CEO who has hijacked it to wage his war on us.
8