It goes like this:
Ramblers side claims what I already mentioned: Nginx belongs to them because Sysoev worked in Rambler when he created Nginx.
Sysoev's side, on the other hand, claims that according to Russian Law, something could belong to a company only and only if it was done on specific request under employment contract or commisioned as a direct contracted work. Neither of those are the case here, according to Igor, so he insists he should retain the rights to software.
SERVER ADMINS: WHY THIS SHIT __MATTERS__ TO YOU:
If you admin a Mastodon \ Pleroma \ Misskey \ Peertube \ Funkwhale \ whatever, chances are, you are using Nginx as your main web-server.
Currently, it is free and open-source.
If Rambler is to claim Nginx as their product, there's no telling what might happen to it's legal status as free software, and, as a consequence, no telling if using it "for free" will be a viable option any longer.
@Deiru the guy will almost certainly try and get the license changed on nginx. If this effort fails we can all say goodbye to what could be considered one of the best open source servers out there
@namwen The problem is not in the license. Rambler belives it's their IP, therefore any licensing done is also illegal, since it's not a "rightful owner" that installed the license.
@Deiru oh god, that's even worse. Are the FSF aware of this?
@namwen No idea, this is literally today's news.
@namwen I feel like the main battle is going to happen in court, with Nginx using the claim I already mentioned to try and prove that it doesn't belong to Rambler.
@blobyoumu I disclosed my name several times and even joked about it's meaning, lmao.
@proxeus That won't help if they win. Their claim to rights dates as far back as 2004. Essentially all of it's codebase is their property from the start, so forking it means "intellectual theft" should they win. I'm not sure how this could be proven but most likely that will be the claim against any fork.
@proxeus Sysoev licensed it under 2-c BSD.
But I stress again that the core of dispute is not about Licensing, it's about authorship and ownership.
@proxeus If you made a thingy as a corpo, and someone lifted the code and published it under BSD, that won't be of much help to anyone who did that, and this is how Rambler frames the problem legally.
@proxeus Read again. It's not about buying or selling.
It was never sold. It was developed while it's author worked at Rambler (as a non-company, hobby project not commisioned by Rambler), which rambler says makes it theirs. No selling or buying involved.
The closest thing I can name that is like this situation is one ark from "Silicon Valley" where a company tried to sue off software from protagonist because it was developed on the company's office PC. Except it is unknown if it was or wasn't developed on work pc in this case.
@Deiru This is very scary.
@Deiru forking is always an option. Non-open source versions of previously open-source software tend to die when competing against the open-source renamed fork.
@Feufochmar Unless Rambler will be able to sue any fork, as it will happen should they win.
One user suggested to look at SCO vs. Linux as a relevant case.
Forking can be illegal as the claim to ownership goes back to day 0, rendering all actions on the codebase, and hence forks, illegal.
@blobyoumu You might not be able to anyway.
Read the thread closer. Accusations are of violatining exclusive rights that are claimed to have been existing since nginx existed.
@blobyoumu What's more, Rambler's case features accusations of "unidentified number of individuals" using the software since 2004.
@blobyoumu You'd have to also change headers and meta to not mention NGINX for Justin Case's sake.
Here's help to switch from NGINX to Apache.