Skyblivion team says a former volunteer is threatening legal action against the fan-made Oblivion remake in a dispute over code they contributed.

Skyblivion team says a former volunteer is threatening legal action against the fan-made Oblivion remake in a dispute over code they contributed.

  • Riskable@programming.devEnglish
    115·
    13 days ago

    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
    • urushitan 漆たん@kakera.kintsugi.moeEnglish
      34·
      13 days ago

      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.”

      • disorderly@lemmy.worldEnglish
        29·
        13 days ago

        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.

        • spankysalmon@fedinsfw.appEnglish
          8·
          13 days ago

          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.

          • Cocodapuf@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            12 days ago

            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.

            • spankysalmon@fedinsfw.appEnglish
              1·
              12 days ago

              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)

      • Katana314@lemmy.worldEnglish
        10·
        13 days ago

        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.

    • bss03@infosec.pubEnglish
      2·
      12 days ago

      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).