Yeah, not much to go by from the snips, but "After DDN’s acquisition ... subsequently improperly open sourced ... without DDN’s permission" [emphasis added] mak

Yeah, not much to go by from the snips, but "After DDN’s acquisition ... subsequently improperly open sourced ... without DDN’s permission" [emphasis added] makes it sound like this is what they are claiming happened. That someone released the source code as open source when they didn't have the copyrights to it anymore. Not knowing all the facts it's hard to say, but there is a possibility they may have the law on their side here. This is kind of an interesting question in open-source. Developers tend to just assume that a license is valid, but that's only true if the license issuer had full copyright of the code to begin with (work-product agreements become a possible source of complication here). There is always a chance that someone could come along later and claim copyright over some/all of that code, which could by then be forked and/or incorporated into various projects.