Comment

Comment on Skyblivion team says former volunteer is threatening to sue over code dispute

veniasilente@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

But if the answer to both is “no” then we’re in sort of a legal gray area because neither side has any explicit legal ground.

Nope. In the absence of any explicit legal statement to the contrary, the explicit implicit stature is that you own the copyright of that which you create.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Goodeye8@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
Owning the copyright of something and giving that something away (copyrighted or not) are two different things. My point was in regards to the latter. If they gave away their copyrighted thing without saying anything about how the receiver can use said copyrighted thing then what is there to enforce? It’s not like he told them he can take back the permission to use his code at any time and they’re obligated to no longer use said code. He can’t retroactively say him taking away his permission to use his code also means they’re no longer allowed to use what he had given.

source
- veniasilente@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  
  My point was in regards to the latter. If they gave away their copyrighted thing without saying anything about how the receiver can use said copyrighted thing then what is there to enforce?
  
  Nothing. Exactly.
  
  Which is why I was always stressing the points that this was easily foldable if there was a paper trail / project consensus on how to operate. Now, if there is none of the above, then the legal expectation is to fall back to defaults:
  
  If they gave away their copyrighted thing
  
  Did they “gave away”? Or did they merely contribute it? Two different things.
  
  without saying anything about how the receiver can use
  
  “Silence obligues”, in which case it means “the fallback applies which is a) I retain the copyright if there was no CLA signed that waived my rights or b) you retain the rights if there was such a waiver of rights”. Ez pz.
  
  He can’t retroactively say him taking away his permission to use his code also means they’re no longer allowed to use what he had given.
  
  He wouldn’t need to, is the point.
  
  source
  - Goodeye8@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    
    Did they “gave away”? Or did they merely contribute it? Two different things.
    
    I don’t see the difference, I said gave away but for me it meant the same as contributing their own code for someone else to use.
    
    “Silence obligues”, in which case it means “the fallback applies which is a) I retain the copyright if there was no CLA signed that waived my rights or b) you retain the rights if there was such a waiver of rights”. Ez pz.
    
    Alternatively, implicit license. From the article:
    
    This doctrine posits that a copyright holder may grant permission to use their work without an explicit agreement, based on the circumstances surrounding the creation or distribution of the work. Implied licenses arise when the actions of the copyright holder reasonably suggest consent to use the material, thereby creating a legal understanding between parties.
    
    He wouldn’t need to, is the point.
    
    Under implicit license he needs to. Or rather he needs to prove the implicit license does not apply.
    
    source