2 added a newparagraph.
source | link

First, of course you should be acknowledged, and the company is well aware of this, which is why they contacted you. Big companies do not release open source libraries without a legal review and most likely the lawyers have told them they need to get permission from you. They copied code without a clear license that allowed them to do so and definitely without a license that allows them to release it, so now they have to fix that in order to release.

Second, you should think about what license you are comfortable with and what kind of acknowledgement you want, assuming you are comfortable with them releasing. However they are unlikely to be willing to use a license like GPL, although you never know. You can visit the Open Source Initiative and Free Software Foundation websites to learn more about the different licenselicenses. As someone with open source projects myself I think if you can come to an agreement with them about this you're probably better off with them releasing and maintaining because it is a lot of work and headaches to deal with users who show up wanting bug fixes, updates and improvements. It's fun for a while but it gets tiring too. Since they have people they pay to do things like that, it's pretty nice.

Third, if they do a release you can always fork their release and continue your development, contributing back to their project if you want (or they can watch you).

That said, personally, I'd want my name in the licensing file as the original author. Depending on the language and code style I might want it elsewhere too.

This overall is a legal issue, and I suggest you talk to a lawyer who knows about software licensing. You might be able to get advice at your campus but you might also be able to get advice from an open source advocacy organization.

You should also consider what licenses you are comfortable with and you will also want to consider what licensing they are proposing. If you can't come to an agreement with them then it can't be released by them. Your code is your copyright (or possibly that of your employer). I do think it's unusual for academic code to be copied verbatim because a lot of times it is pseudocode and in that case it is really about "discovery" (which unlike an invention is not patentable). But in your case it sounds like there is clear copyright.

Addition: Also, if I were you I would discuss with them writing a paper with your as an author about their version of the library. That gives you what you need in terms of academic productivity metrics. I also put links to code repositories of formally released code in a citation format and the estimated number of downloads into my annual accountability reports.

First, of course you should be acknowledged, and the company is well aware of this, which is why they contacted you. Big companies do not release open source libraries without a legal review and most likely the lawyers have told them they need to get permission from you. They copied code without a clear license that allowed them to do so and definitely without a license that allows them to release it, so now they have to fix that in order to release.

Second, you should think about what license you are comfortable with and what kind of acknowledgement you want, assuming you are comfortable with them releasing. However they are unlikely to be willing to use a license like GPL, although you never know. You can visit the Open Source Initiative and Free Software Foundation websites to learn more about the different license. As someone with open source projects myself I think if you can come to an agreement with them about this you're probably better off with them releasing and maintaining because it is a lot of work and headaches to deal with users who show up wanting bug fixes, updates and improvements. It's fun for a while but it gets tiring too. Since they have people they pay to do things like that, it's pretty nice.

Third, if they do a release you can always fork their release and continue your development, contributing back to their project if you want (or they can watch you).

That said, personally, I'd want my name in the licensing file as the original author. Depending on the language and code style I might want it elsewhere too.

This overall is a legal issue, and I suggest you talk to a lawyer who knows about software licensing. You might be able to get advice at your campus but you might also be able to get advice from an open source advocacy organization.

You should also consider what licenses you are comfortable with and you will also want to consider what licensing they are proposing. If you can't come to an agreement with them then it can't be released by them. Your code is your copyright (or possibly that of your employer). I do think it's unusual for academic code to be copied verbatim because a lot of times it is pseudocode and in that case it is really about "discovery" (which unlike an invention is not patentable). But in your case it sounds like there is clear copyright.

First, of course you should be acknowledged, and the company is well aware of this, which is why they contacted you. Big companies do not release open source libraries without a legal review and most likely the lawyers have told them they need to get permission from you. They copied code without a clear license that allowed them to do so and definitely without a license that allows them to release it, so now they have to fix that in order to release.

Second, you should think about what license you are comfortable with and what kind of acknowledgement you want, assuming you are comfortable with them releasing. However they are unlikely to be willing to use a license like GPL, although you never know. You can visit the Open Source Initiative and Free Software Foundation websites to learn more about the different licenses. As someone with open source projects myself I think if you can come to an agreement with them about this you're probably better off with them releasing and maintaining because it is a lot of work and headaches to deal with users who show up wanting bug fixes, updates and improvements. It's fun for a while but it gets tiring too. Since they have people they pay to do things like that, it's pretty nice.

Third, if they do a release you can always fork their release and continue your development, contributing back to their project if you want (or they can watch you).

That said, personally, I'd want my name in the licensing file as the original author. Depending on the language and code style I might want it elsewhere too.

This overall is a legal issue, and I suggest you talk to a lawyer who knows about software licensing. You might be able to get advice at your campus but you might also be able to get advice from an open source advocacy organization.

You should also consider what licenses you are comfortable with and you will also want to consider what licensing they are proposing. If you can't come to an agreement with them then it can't be released by them. Your code is your copyright (or possibly that of your employer). I do think it's unusual for academic code to be copied verbatim because a lot of times it is pseudocode and in that case it is really about "discovery" (which unlike an invention is not patentable). But in your case it sounds like there is clear copyright.

Addition: Also, if I were you I would discuss with them writing a paper with your as an author about their version of the library. That gives you what you need in terms of academic productivity metrics. I also put links to code repositories of formally released code in a citation format and the estimated number of downloads into my annual accountability reports.

1
source | link

First, of course you should be acknowledged, and the company is well aware of this, which is why they contacted you. Big companies do not release open source libraries without a legal review and most likely the lawyers have told them they need to get permission from you. They copied code without a clear license that allowed them to do so and definitely without a license that allows them to release it, so now they have to fix that in order to release.

Second, you should think about what license you are comfortable with and what kind of acknowledgement you want, assuming you are comfortable with them releasing. However they are unlikely to be willing to use a license like GPL, although you never know. You can visit the Open Source Initiative and Free Software Foundation websites to learn more about the different license. As someone with open source projects myself I think if you can come to an agreement with them about this you're probably better off with them releasing and maintaining because it is a lot of work and headaches to deal with users who show up wanting bug fixes, updates and improvements. It's fun for a while but it gets tiring too. Since they have people they pay to do things like that, it's pretty nice.

Third, if they do a release you can always fork their release and continue your development, contributing back to their project if you want (or they can watch you).

That said, personally, I'd want my name in the licensing file as the original author. Depending on the language and code style I might want it elsewhere too.

This overall is a legal issue, and I suggest you talk to a lawyer who knows about software licensing. You might be able to get advice at your campus but you might also be able to get advice from an open source advocacy organization.

You should also consider what licenses you are comfortable with and you will also want to consider what licensing they are proposing. If you can't come to an agreement with them then it can't be released by them. Your code is your copyright (or possibly that of your employer). I do think it's unusual for academic code to be copied verbatim because a lot of times it is pseudocode and in that case it is really about "discovery" (which unlike an invention is not patentable). But in your case it sounds like there is clear copyright.