Skyblivion team says a former volunteer is threatening legal action against the fan-made Oblivion remake in a dispute over code they contributed.
What a douche. When you submit code to a project, you agree that your code will fall under that project’s license. If it’s under an open source license, there’s no “backsies.”
Relevant metaphors:
- Putting the cat back in the bag
- Forcing the genie back into the bottle
- Bitching with lawyers like Larry Ellison
As far as I can tell there is no public source code beyond a few tools they use, and many those repos have no license. So while his actions are shitty, he didn’t legally give them code. From what it sounds like, he gave them a compiled asset with access to his source code, then revoked access to his source code repository, so they decompiled the asset and he’s suing them for that. Which he may have legal grounds to do, because I’m guessing this was occurring in the “let’s all make a mod together!” and there likely isn’t a formal contract signed that says “anything you contribute to the project is ours.”
I’ve worked on a few projects like this and there is a general expectation that if you contribute code built against a system you maintain separately from the shared project, you grant permission for the project to continue using it when you leave.
I’ve also seen people threaten to sue on every one of them, and the one person who actually did got fucking rinsed.
General expectation and legally bound are two different things, though. If they have no copyright, no licenses applied, and no contract, they might not have much chance to win. I think we all know how the law frequently gets used to reinforce shitty behavior, so it’s not exactly far fetched.
Of course, if the butthead also doesn’t have a copyright or license applied on the asset, they might similarly be pissing in the wind.
Of course, if the butthead also doesn’t have a copyright or license applied on the asset, they might similarly be pissing in the wind.
This seems quite likely to be the situation.
Whoops! Hopefully the lawsuit is thrown out, then, and everyone at least adds a license file to their stuff so everyone can move forward with clear usage rights.
(I mean, ‘if’ he sues, since the article only says threats)
I hate that I’ve worked at companies where some employees, searching the web for code, think that “no license” means anyone can use it copy-pasted for any purpose.
I’m thankful that Stack Overflow and similar sites set in their terms that submissions become free to use, but in general blogs, it’s not an automatic conclusion.
Unfortunately, more projects should get this “in writing”. GNU projects prefer copyright assignment, but (I think) many of them also accept just a clear licensing statement (“This is mine and no one else’s; I give it under the project license.” but in legalese).
If there’s no clear statement, a judge many very well issue a preliminary injunction against the project distribution, just so they have time to gather and review evidence, even if the actions of the contributor are later found to show intent. With a dated statement containing the contributor identifier(s), a judge is much more likely to accept an initial motion to dismiss (even with prejudice).
Good to know my “intellectual property is bullshit” rule of thumb still works.
The very fact that a threat to sue was possible and that the team preferred to roll back / remove the code indicates the situation was not legally clear cut when the code was submitted in the first place. And, come on, this was solved in the 90s!
Did the submitter sign a legal document, backed by the project, to waive their rights and ownership of the code to the project specifically? If so, this is done. If not, this is done too.
I doubt it’s as simple as you make it out to be. For starters you’re only looking at it from the perspective of the project. Does the project have any legal framework to own whatever was submitted to the project? But you also have to look at it from the perspective of the submitter. Do they have any framework that states how their work can be used? If the answer to either question is “yes” this is as simple as you state. 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.
Personally I think the fact that the submitter willingly gave the project the code to use makes it fall under an implicit license which lets the project use the code for its intended purpose. All the project did was maintenance on the code (which required decompilation of the code, which to my knowledge is not illegal unless explicitly stated) so it would continue working as intended.
It’s hard to come up with a real world analogy for something that can be copied infinite amount of times, so it’s a bit shoddy but here goes. If I give you an axe to break logs and I tell you nothing about how you can use the axe. The handle breaks and you replace the handle so you could continue using the axe. Do you think there’s a case for me to sue you for replacing the handle on the axe I gave you to use? And now consider the possibility that I was able to give away a perfect copy of the axe and the handle got replaced on the copy not the original. My axe works just fine, you simply made sure your copy of my axe also continues to work.
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.
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.
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.
(but then again: all this is in the utopia of Everything Was There On Paper)
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, Implied 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.
If their code was for example made specifically for that project or they approached the project to contribute their code, that forms an implied license through the actions of the copyright holder.
He wouldn’t need to, is the point.
Under implicit license he needs to. Or rather he needs to prove the implied license does not apply.
That’s actually a really awesome metaphor! I was quite impressed with that.
And I think you nailed down the issue pretty well, if there’s already some legal agreement, this has to be judged with that in mind. If there’s no prior legal agreement, then we’re going to have to use some common sense. And common sense says that you did willingly give this to someone with the intent for them to use it, so yeah, they’re using it…
They could have gone with free software license from the start or the fsf approach. 🥴
If they were going to do that then it would’ve been OpenMW instead of some mod for a proprietary game.
What an asshole…
Which one?
The volunteer, what the fuck do they think volunteering is?
You don’t get to take your work away after you change your mind (at least not unless you had a contract that stipulated that, but even then wtf? It’s volunteer work).
Gonna go back to the soup kitchen and take all the soup back.
But, what if someone used the calories provided by your soup to commit a crime in another jurisdiction? What if they throw your soup on a politicalaly oppressed group?
You could be held responsible!
Apparently…
Yeah, and what if they copied your soup, and then freely distribute those calories. Crazy. Or you make a good soup one-time, and then they use your recipe, without so much as asking. Wow. So flagrant.
If you see soupthing, say something. Illegally copied soup isn’t food, it’s CONTRABAND!
You wouldn’t download some soup
Now I read ‘soup’ so often, I am at the soup store, just great.
Let me just go and collect every single burger and pizza I’ve ever made in my life.
You don’t get to take your work away after you change your mind
In the world of software, you actually can. Doesn’t mean you should, but the option is there legally for (in general) good reasons. EDIT: for example, a project could make you accessory or compulsory to a crime if the code you contributed was distributed to a jurisdiction where it is illegal, see DMCA, cryptography exports, etc.
Same as in the world of arts. There was a famous case in… I think Mexico? where some theatre artists’s portrayals and renditions of characters were reused without their authorization in a campaign to defame HIV victims and the LGBTQ population in general.
but what did h3 contribute@ because the team had to decompile a bimaru. so he didnt commit code. we dont have all the facts but the guy suing is trying to get the personal info of everyone involved so thats fucked up
Just cancel it already we all know it’s coming
