In case this is a real question: AFAIK* that is not possible for them to do. The project was open source and it accepted code contributions from everyone using a FOSS license. This means:
Everyone who has seen the code explicitly has rights to redistribute it, and this right cannot be revoked
The core team does not own the entirety of the code - to transfer ownership to Nintendo they would have to get approval from every single contributor that ever made a pull request that got merged. This is impractical to say the least
So no, there is no and there cannot be legal basis for Nintendo to claim copyright on Yuzu. They might have other claims, but I won’t weigh in on how good they might be because I’m way out of my depth already.
* I’m actually making a bunch of assumptions about Yuzu’s licence and number of contributors that I haven’t bothered to check, so take this with a grain of salt. I’m still pretty confident about point 1 though, I’d be really surprised if this was a wrong assumption, and it alone is enough.
Anyway, I just read through the settlement and I didn’t see any explicit transfer of ownership of he code in there. I’m not a lawyer though, there are some things in there I may not understand the implications of.
Did they transfer ownership of the code to Nintendo? If so, it might be a violation of Nintendo’s copyright on Yuzu itself.
To everyone who downvoted this: You are of low relative quality. Friggen jerks! I dress better than you! GET A LIFE! 😡😡😡😡😡
In case this is a real question: AFAIK* that is not possible for them to do. The project was open source and it accepted code contributions from everyone using a FOSS license. This means:
So no, there is no and there cannot be legal basis for Nintendo to claim copyright on Yuzu. They might have other claims, but I won’t weigh in on how good they might be because I’m way out of my depth already.
* I’m actually making a bunch of assumptions about Yuzu’s licence and number of contributors that I haven’t bothered to check, so take this with a grain of salt. I’m still pretty confident about point 1 though, I’d be really surprised if this was a wrong assumption, and it alone is enough.
“In case this is a real question?”
Anyway, I just read through the settlement and I didn’t see any explicit transfer of ownership of he code in there. I’m not a lawyer though, there are some things in there I may not understand the implications of.