3 ms·
Um, removing a person who’s giving a talk is a completely different action from the distribution of (potentially) unlicensed software. DEFCON may well have man
by olliej 2y ago
Um, removing a person who’s giving a talk is a completely different action from the distribution of (potentially) unlicensed software.
DEFCON may well have many reasons and legal recourses to stop a talk from occurring. But if they do not meet the terms of the contract for the IP, then the author/developer/manufacturer is entirely free to pursue action against them.
Now it’s possible the developers had not watched Mike Monteiro’s “fuck you pay me” talk (https://creativemornings.com/talks/mike-monteiro--2/1 https://creativemornings.com/talks/mike-monteiro--2/1), but assuming that the claims in this tweet are remotely accurate you can bet that - assuming they can get someone to do it at all - next years defcon badge will be produce by someone with a contract that has the only sane language: “no transfer of any IP or right to distribute occurs until receipt of full payment”
- olliej 2y agoMinor addendum due to being outside of the edit window. The “um,” start to this was unnecessarily shitty/passive aggressive and I just noticed it when I was checking for replies, so apologies for that attitude. The issue I was wanting to address is that the reply was talking about removing the speaker as if that is relevant to the OP’s comment about IP, etc and in hindsight I guess I assumed a bad faith argument and responded to that assumed intent rather than the actual comment.
- PawgerZ 2y ago> the distribution of (potentially) unlicensed software The creator didn't revoke the license until after the badges were distributed.