4 ms·

> I'll also mention you can't get reasonable even legal information without posting a lot more background (two short exerts aren't adequate for anyone to have a

> I'll also mention you can't get reasonable even legal information without posting a lot more background (two short exerts aren't adequate for anyone to have a legal opinion). There isn't that much more to show but here is the entire DMCA takedown request which I received: https://gist.github.com/siepkes/8e1f51e2ce9e44ba7116ed79e49298f4 https://gist.github.com/siepkes/8e1f51e2ce9e44ba7116ed79e492... > If forensics here prove that the person who open-sourced did not have the authority to do so Announcements of the opensourcing were made on various places (like Reddit [1]) by Dmitry Yusupov who is Co-founder and CTO of Nexenta. He also made a lot of commits in the OSS Github repo which was Apache licensed. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/edgefs/comments/cf0o2b/edgefs_open_sourced/ https://www.reddit.com/r/edgefs/comments/cf0o2b/edgefs_open_...

wegs 6y ago
If it were me, I would: 1) Contact the maintainers of the other repositories. 2) Draft a DMCA counter-notice, laying out that: "The repository was open-sourced by Dmitry Yusupov who is co-founder and CTO of Nexenta. This was publicly advertised on multiple public forums, including [], as well as the github repository itself. As a CTO, he had either authority (or, at least, apparent authority) to open-source this tool. This tool continued to be publicly advertised under a [insert license] license by Nextenta for [insert number] months in Nextenta's official github repository. I cloned this tool in full compliance with the license under which Nextenta licensed this tool, and continue to comply with this license. Whereas this license has no expiration clause, Nextenta has no legal grounds under which to withdraw the [insert license] license under which it licensed this code to us. I, and others, have invested significant time, cost, and effort, in reliance on Nextenta's advertising. In addition, Nextenta's business has generated significant value from the goodwill from their announcement of the open-sourcing of EdgeFS. Nextenta has no grounds on which to retroactively withhold continued rights to users who use their code under this license. Shutting down this repository causes ongoing harm to myself and to [others who have signed on] and continue to rely on this repository for [whatever value you derive]. If Nextenta believes its CTO and employees were not authorized to take this action, Nextenta's recourse is to seek damages from those employees. It has no grounds to retroactively deny rights to [list of people]. If it chooses to do so, [standard language about seeking maximum damages, expressly reserving all rights, etc.]" Find legal language online in other such filings, and stitch it together. Try to understand what it says and why. 3) Chip in for a 1-hour consultation with a GOOD lawyer (high per-hour costs, likely, but low time commitment). Have them revise this letter. Good lawyers can do this FAST. Note that you want to have EVERYTHING organized and lined up going into this meeting. The more time you spend beforehand, the less you'll need to pay the lawyer. That's the point of the draft. 4) If you have sufficient funds, have them ship this letter off on their letterhead (looks scarier). Lacking funds, do it yourself (still shows you know your rights). Most companies will back down at this point. However, if they don't, these things can either get super-expensive (if you hire a lawyer) or completely life-consuming (if you decide to handle the legal work yourself). One upside is you do learn /a lot/ in the process either way. Lawyer friends who can help you unofficially are also super-useful. I'll mention that's what I'd do. Most people would back down and get on with their life. Another pressure point are an adversary's customers. Those are often awesome. If customers don't believe a company follows contracts, they're f-ed. Often, this just takes communicating what happened, but sometimes it needs to be adapted to customer culture. But you do need to be careful how you pursue this (again, being careful to stay well within the right side of the law).
WhyNotHugo 6y ago
The "Co-founder and CTO" did the publishing, and they claim it was an employee without permission? Lol. They're clearly bullshitting. I'd believe that excuse if a mere developer had open sourced it, but not someone that high up.
- gpm 6y ago
  Note that this the the co founder of the CTO of the company that was acquired, not of the company that owned the copyright at the time. Edit: Or at least not the CTO of the company that owned the company... I'm not clear on what the subsidiary corporate structure here looks like. I remain skeptical... but it's important to get the facts right.
ballenf 6y ago
As an officer of the company, the public can presume that he has the authority to speak for the company. One question would be whether he was listed as an officer on the company's Secretary of State filings at the time of the pronouncement. Even without that, if they held him out as an officer in letterhead, websites, etc. they likely cannot "undo" his actions. FWIW, "co-founder" is not the title that matters. The title with the word "officer" is the operative one. Officer is a word that has a legal meaning and generally means the person can speak on behalf of the company, regardless of what a parent entity may later say. They entrusted him with the title. It's why you often see the elevation of someone to an "officer" position comes with a whole new round of background checks and interviews.

wegs 6y ago

If it were me, I would: 1) Contact the maintainers of the other repositories. 2) Draft a DMCA counter-notice, laying out that: "The repository was open-sourced by Dmitry Yusupov who is co-founder and CTO of Nexenta. This was publicly advertised on multiple public forums, including [], as well as the github repository itself. As a CTO, he had either authority (or, at least, apparent authority) to open-source this tool. This tool continued to be publicly advertised under a [insert license] license by Nextenta for [insert number] months in Nextenta's official github repository. I cloned this tool in full compliance with the license under which Nextenta licensed this tool, and continue to comply with this license. Whereas this license has no expiration clause, Nextenta has no legal grounds under which to withdraw the [insert license] license under which it licensed this code to us. I, and others, have invested significant time, cost, and effort, in reliance on Nextenta's advertising. In addition, Nextenta's business has generated significant value from the goodwill from their announcement of the open-sourcing of EdgeFS. Nextenta has no grounds on which to retroactively withhold continued rights to users who use their code under this license. Shutting down this repository causes ongoing harm to myself and to [others who have signed on] and continue to rely on this repository for [whatever value you derive]. If Nextenta believes its CTO and employees were not authorized to take this action, Nextenta's recourse is to seek damages from those employees. It has no grounds to retroactively deny rights to [list of people]. If it chooses to do so, [standard language about seeking maximum damages, expressly reserving all rights, etc.]" Find legal language online in other such filings, and stitch it together. Try to understand what it says and why. 3) Chip in for a 1-hour consultation with a GOOD lawyer (high per-hour costs, likely, but low time commitment). Have them revise this letter. Good lawyers can do this FAST. Note that you want to have EVERYTHING organized and lined up going into this meeting. The more time you spend beforehand, the less you'll need to pay the lawyer. That's the point of the draft. 4) If you have sufficient funds, have them ship this letter off on their letterhead (looks scarier). Lacking funds, do it yourself (still shows you know your rights). Most companies will back down at this point. However, if they don't, these things can either get super-expensive (if you hire a lawyer) or completely life-consuming (if you decide to handle the legal work yourself). One upside is you do learn /a lot/ in the process either way. Lawyer friends who can help you unofficially are also super-useful. I'll mention that's what I'd do. Most people would back down and get on with their life. Another pressure point are an adversary's customers. Those are often awesome. If customers don't believe a company follows contracts, they're f-ed. Often, this just takes communicating what happened, but sometimes it needs to be adapted to customer culture. But you do need to be careful how you pursue this (again, being careful to stay well within the right side of the law).

WhyNotHugo 6y ago

The "Co-founder and CTO" did the publishing, and they claim it was an employee without permission? Lol. They're clearly bullshitting. I'd believe that excuse if a mere developer had open sourced it, but not someone that high up.

gpm 6y ago
Note that this the the co founder of the CTO of the company that was acquired, not of the company that owned the copyright at the time. Edit: Or at least not the CTO of the company that owned the company... I'm not clear on what the subsidiary corporate structure here looks like. I remain skeptical... but it's important to get the facts right.

ballenf 6y ago

As an officer of the company, the public can presume that he has the authority to speak for the company. One question would be whether he was listed as an officer on the company's Secretary of State filings at the time of the pronouncement. Even without that, if they held him out as an officer in letterhead, websites, etc. they likely cannot "undo" his actions. FWIW, "co-founder" is not the title that matters. The title with the word "officer" is the operative one. Officer is a word that has a legal meaning and generally means the person can speak on behalf of the company, regardless of what a parent entity may later say. They entrusted him with the title. It's why you often see the elevation of someone to an "officer" position comes with a whole new round of background checks and interviews.