Comment on Skyblivion team says former volunteer is threatening to sue over code dispute
veniasilente@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day agoMy 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.
Goodeye8@piefed.social 1 day ago
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.
Alternatively, implicit license. From the article:
Under implicit license he needs to. Or rather he needs to prove the implicit license does not apply.