Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ejo4041 2840 days ago
Anything new on that front that you have heard? I remember the meltdown but haven't heard anything since. Looks like the business guy is just continuing to sell what they had and then no updates ever. Once people get sick of that, maybe the company just goes away?
2 comments
subway 2840 days ago
No clue. As I understand it, the author destroyed the signing keys, so updates aren't even possible. A fresh build with new signing keys would need to be flashed out of band.
link
aesh2Xa1 2840 days ago
The original author stated his intent to fork and resume the project under a new name and with a new device set, but probably still the Pixel line.
link
monocasa 2840 days ago
Didn't the license prevent forks?
link
icebraining 2839 days ago
I think he claims he owns the copyright; if that's true, the license doesn't apply to him.
link
monocasa 2839 days ago
That's a bold claim when he was being paid a salary to work on it.
link
icebraining 2839 days ago
Was he? His claim is: "I have never had any employment agreement, copyright agreement, licensing agreement, NDA or even work contracts with Copperhead. There was a mutual understanding that I owned the code I was writing."
link
dredmorbius 2839 days ago
Work for hire doctrine says he has aa very poor argument.

Work for hire is a statutorily defined term (17 U.S.C. § 101), so a work for hire is not created merely because parties to an agreement state that the work is a work for hire. It is an exception to the general rule that the person who actually creates a work is the legally recognized author of that work. According to copyright law in the United States and certain other copyright jurisdictions, if a work is "made for hire", the employer—not the employee—is considered the legal author.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire

link
monocasa 2839 days ago
I can't think of a context where a judge looks at a salaried CTO commiting code to repositories with the same name as the company, in inarguably the core domain of the company, and shipped in the name of the company by said CTO, with nothing written down to the contrary and goes "oh yeah, that's totally his code, not the company's".

I think Daniel's in the process of learning that verbal agreements don't mean anything when the shit hits the fan. IMO that's what he gets for switching to a non copyleft license.

link