Comment by mrandish
1 day ago
I agree with your points and would add one more: the TFA gives a second-hand recounting of what the various company's lawyers supposedly told the potential reboot licensor and quotes the erstwhile licensor's conclusion they were basically threatening legal action. But this isn't consistent with the companies also indicating they weren't sure what rights they may have (if any).
However, it IS consistent with a thing prudent lawyers would typically do when discussing an unknown future hypothetical. They'd reserve their client's rights should the client later discover they have grounds and wish to pursue it. Depending on how it's phrased, that could be confused with a 'legal threat', but I suspect the lawyers may have just been careful to not unintentionally relinquish any future rights.
I'm basing this on being involved in similar licensing discussions between lawyers. While some lawyers and clients are assholes, not all are. Even if they were trying to be 'good guys', it's not clear they could be in this situation. Since they don't even know if they have any rights, they don't have grounds to grant any kind of permission (and doing so in the absence of having any rights could make their client liable - at least in theory).
Nobody was asking them to give indemnification or grant the license. Each of the potential holders just need to put it down on paper they aren't going enforce rights if they had any, not give the developer a complete license to use. Second can incur liability, first is pretty common clause used in many settlement agreements.
These things typically only work when you are well connected to senior management in these orgs, the ones who can sign off on such one-off requirements. Business processes are designed for the 80% of use-cases. More often than not, we end up hitting a wall with any long tail/unique requests.