I am honestly surprised that Mozilla's legal counsel has not stepped in already to offer advice and guidance. (this post is something that such an intervention most likely would have stopped)
They probably are, just not directly to him, but to his lawyers.
At least, for the US-side lawyers (I'm presuming Mozilla's US lawyers are on this one) due to conflict-of-interest rules, they would not be able to step in to offer advice and guidance to him directly, because the representation would probably be adverse to Mozilla's interests.
The rule in most states (based on the ABA model rules) is " A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:
(1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or
(2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client , a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer."
Even if you don't believe #1 applies, #2 definitely applies.
Norway may have different rules, but the local Mozilla lawyers are bound by their local state bars, where this rule (or some variant) would apply. I've avoided discussion of whether this conflict could be consented to by him, etc, as it varies from state state
This of course, only applies directly. They can and probably are talking with his lawyers, just not advising him directly.
It might also be a bit "adverse to Mozilla's interests" if they were less able to hire experienced developers in the future because they got a reputation of not sticking up for their current ones.
Maybe they have a lawyer on retainer in Norway, but I doubt it. I'm sure they'll get one, but it would be strange for a non-profit like Mozilla to have a worldwide legal staff.
Many large law Liam's know international law. I'd guess that a company like theirs with a strong international presence would be interested in that.
Even if they don't have someone handy who knows Norwegian law, they could easily retain them.
My point is that proper legal advice can not be what's preventing them from helping. My question to OP was about the differences in laws which he/she was referring to.
At least, for the US-side lawyers (I'm presuming Mozilla's US lawyers are on this one) due to conflict-of-interest rules, they would not be able to step in to offer advice and guidance to him directly, because the representation would probably be adverse to Mozilla's interests.
The rule in most states (based on the ABA model rules) is " A concurrent conflict of interest exists if: (1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or (2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client , a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer."
Even if you don't believe #1 applies, #2 definitely applies.
Norway may have different rules, but the local Mozilla lawyers are bound by their local state bars, where this rule (or some variant) would apply. I've avoided discussion of whether this conflict could be consented to by him, etc, as it varies from state state
This of course, only applies directly. They can and probably are talking with his lawyers, just not advising him directly.