This. More so, specifically, don't assume that since the disclaimer says they last 20 years that that means that it has expired. I could put a disclaimer that says that the patents last for only 5 years, then you go "oh, it's not patented anymore!" And reimplement it, and then I sue you for knowingly violating my patent. Why? All because you took legal advice from the very person you would end up being a defendant against.
Stop looking at patents, you idiot. Actively looking at patents and then violating someone's patent means that you "knew or should have known" of the other patent, infringed on it deliberately, and are now liable for triple damages. This is in contrast to "incidental" infringement of someone's patent.
While this the default good advice regarding patents, I don't think he went out of his way to find this patent, because he likely has seen tons of code that is patented, this is just the first that he's aware of. Which makes me think that the notice was in the code. Which is actually a good idea for patented code. "They copied my code, which includes a patent notice, which means that they were aware that it was a patent violation, and therefore open to triple damages."
(Note: although the above code might imply that I support software patents, I don't. It's a "good idea" for patent trolls.)
"Oddly, I don't know how you could then make the claim: "Further, as far as I know nobody (except for you) has tried to make a credible claim that Austrian economics is essentially unfalsifiable." when the very article that you referenced yourself contained details and knowledge about someone other than me (and significantly more credible) making the claim that Austrian economics is unfalsifiable."
The key word there is "credible".
I don't care if God made the claims, if they contradict verifiable facts. That's not credible.
But it's not just the Nobel laureates and I making this assertion either:
Ludwig von Mises wrote of his theory, "its statements and propositions are not derived from experience... They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts." F.A. Hayek wrote that any theories in the social sciences can "never be verified or falsified by reference to facts."
So, are the very designers and foundation layers for Austrian School now not "credible" either? They seem to agree with me that it's unfalsifiable...
Further, I repeat: I gave you simple facts that you can verify yourself. If you don't understand the role of facts in a debate, as opposed to rhetoric, then it is not I who is getting it wrong.
Nostradamus predicted the promotion of a cardinal. (Or something to that effect.) See? That means Nostradamus's predictions are CORRECT and they're RIGHT. So we should believe all his predictions!
Or wait. Perhaps he just got lucky... and perhaps Austrian school just got lucky... you know, but always predicting doom...
"The details of your Austrian school economics are of little interest to me."
This is the most hypocritical statement you have made so far. If you have no interest, why are you expending so much effort in the process?
Because I'm a pedant. We could be arguing over the ratio of sodium to chlorine in table salt for all I care. What I do care about is you playing semantic games wrong. If you can't be a pedantic bitch about your terminology and debate, then don't play semantic games.
You made a claim about what "capitalism" means. I thought the argument stupid. I've been arguing about your argument this entire time.
Further, I repeat: I gave you simple facts that you can verify yourself. If you don't understand the role of facts in a debate, as opposed to rhetoric, then it is not I who is getting it wrong.
The Austrian school has espoused the downfall and collapse of the economic market forever, and surprise, surprise, when it actually does fail, they claim credit for having seen it coming. If you're always predicting doom, then eventually you're going to be right, because at some point, everything comes to doom.
You want to debate facts and not engage in rhetoric? They why would you even get involved with the Austrian school. Their praxeology, around which the entire school was built, is all about rhetoric rather than mathematical, and scientific models...
"Oddly, I don't know how you could then make the claim: "Further, as far as I know nobody (except for you) has tried to make a credible claim that Austrian economics is essentially unfalsifiable." when the very article that you referenced yourself contained details and knowledge about someone other than me (and significantly more credible) making the claim that Austrian economics is unfalsifiable."
The key word there is "credible".
I don't care if God made the claims, if they contradict verifiable facts. That's not credible.
Ah... so now we redefine "credible" to get out of the moral quandary of you being either a deceitful liar, or an ignorant moron.
This whole "conversation" started out with my assertion that speculative money trading was not "capitalism", because it had little or nothing to do with the production of goods.
You took issue with that, because your definition of "capitalism", apparently, was simply trade. Which is FALSE.
No, that's not my definition of "capitalism", I have not laid out a definition of capitalism. I've simply objected to your definition being a good definition. Definitions are never ever EVER "false". There are however "good" and "bad" definitions.
Supermarkets have everything to do with capitalism, because they deal in the trade of GOODS.
So, the commodities market has everything to do with capitalism, because they deal in the trade of GOODS? But wait, there has been speculative trading even in the commodities markets as well...
And I am done here. You have been doing so many contortionist verbal gymnastics to try to support unsupportable arguments, it is a complete waste of my time to be doing this.
I'm not the one doing contortionist verbal gymnastics. In fact, it's the Austrian school that holds to the idea that models don't need to be mathematically modeled and empirically validated, but rather than simply through praxeology you can get to the truth, right?
First paragraph is golden. If the code was at one time released open source, then you can totally fork it.
What if he can't prove he had the right to release it as Open Source in the first place?
And this is why one needs to speak with a lawyer. These sorts of details can potentially derail anything. But honestly, it's highly unlikely that this is the case, and the automatic assumption would be that if none of his superiors raised a stink that they implicitly authorized his behavior as an agent of the company. Again: I don't know the details, I'm just laying out what's most likely. (And even then it's only at about 10~20% likelihood.)
As per someone noting below: if you want to know your legal rights and what you can do, talk to a lawyer. What you'll get here is a bunch of IANALs telling you bullshit, and IAALbInYl (I Am A Lawyer, but I'm not YOUR lawyer) telling you generic advice that possibly doesn't apply, and that you need to speak to a lawyer who represents your interests.
Sanest advice in the entire thread. Only your lawyer represents your interest and that's whose advice you should seek and listen to.
Not just "only your lawyer represents your interests" but there are a lot of details to every single legal case that could change the rules wildly. Only your lawyer knows the details and is representing your interests at the same time.
no, i don't think they can arbitrarily put a new, more restrictive license on it, what happens to those who are using it under gpl? with name change and ~some modification it is a different product, but the gpled portion is still gpl. if they can prove that the developer was not within his rights to assign a license, they can do whatever they want, though.
The developer (in this situation) doesn't own the copyrights. The company does, and someone can always relicense a copyrighted work, even if that new license is a contradiction of the old licenses. But the old licenses remain in effect, and so the old licenses still apply for the older works.
Take this as an clarifying example: company writes a program XY, and releases it under the GPL. Employee A leaves company. Other employees continue to develop and expand program XY. Company later decides to rename the program ZZ, and release it under a proprietary license that lets them keep the source code secret. Other employees can still continue to work on and develop what is now program ZZ, and those changes are kept secret. Employee A, can fork program XY to the last GPL release, and create a competing project. He cannot however sue the company for not releasing program ZZ as open source because it is based on open source software. This is because the company owns the copyrights to the original program and can do whatever they want with it, including turning it into a closed source project.
Second paragraph is however wrong. If the company owns the copyright on the work then they can relicense it all they want, even if it were previously open source.
I assumed the grandparent was referring to releasing the ex-employees new changes, after the fork.
The ex-employee is perfectly free to release his new changes. He obviously can't release the newer changes that the company made, if they own the copyright, and relicensed.
Loses and expenses can be taken against winnings. I'm not sure if that includes the cost of the winning ticket, but let's assume not.
If the average winning ticket is worth $1000 (a number I just pulled out of my butt after having RTFA in the paper yesterday; I don't recall if it gives an actual average pay-out per ticket), $280,000 means 280 winning tickets. Which also means 99,720 losing tickets.
At $2 per ticket, they pay taxes on $280,000 - 199,440 = 80,560.
There's an easier way. All the tickets are tax deductible except the ones that win. At 280 tickets, at $2 each, that's $560. Which means you pay taxes on the net gain: $80,000, plus the cost of the winning tickets, $560 = $80,560
Ludwig von Mises wrote of his theory, "its statements and propositions are not derived from experience... They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts." F.A. Hayek wrote that any theories in the social sciences can "never be verified or falsified by reference to facts."
Shall you argue with your own demi-gods about if Austrian school is falsifiable or not? They appear to have taken a position opposite to your own. (That's fine, Darwin was wrong about a lot of things as well, and I would nitpick a few issues with him if I had the chance.) But none the less, as conceived the historic definition of "Austrian school economics" clearly was intended to eschew falsifiability...
If you want to make any actual refutation, you are going to have to dig a little deeper than just Wikipedia.
"Appeal to authority", indeed.
I don't have to dig deeper than wikipedia to refute your claim that _I_, snowgirl, am the only person that you know about, making a credible claim that Austrian school is unfalsifiable. I'm patently not alone in this assertion (especially considering that the assertion is not my own, but that of nobel laureates).
The details of your Austrian school economics are of little interest to me. It's the details in the simple process of debate that you keep getting wrong that interest me.
An interesting thing to say, since I referred to the same Wikipedia entry in my reply.
Oddly, I don't know how you could then make the claim: "Further, as far as I know nobody (except for you) has tried to make a credible claim that Austrian economics is essentially unfalsifiable." when the very article that you referenced yourself contained details and knowledge about someone other than me (and significantly more credible) making the claim that Austrian economics is unfalsifiable.
So, let's cut the bullshit right here. There are credible people (nobel laureates no less) who think that Austrian school lacks rigor, and is fundamentally unfalsifiable. These claims are not my own, and I am not the only one making them. Therefore your statement "Further, as far as I know nobody (except for you) has tried to make a credible claim that Austrian economics is essentially unfalsifiable." is fundamentally inconsistent with facts. But wait, if you knew this statement was false when you made it, then you willfully made a statement that was false with intent for it to be accepted as true. What's the word for that? Oh yeah, LYING.
Wait, I just though of a way that I could be wrong. Perhaps you just happened to not know anything about any of the criticism of Austrian school. That would keep your statement consistent with facts. Sure there are credible claims that Austrian school is unfalsifiable, and the people making those claims aren't me, but you were just unaware of them. Although, now that I think about it, this idea seems a bit foolish, since it requires assuming that you are willfully walking into confirmation bias by ignoring all criticism of your position.
So, crap, it may just be a lack of imagination here, but I only see two possibilities... either you're an idiot, and ignorant of all criticism of your pet economic model, or you're a dishonest liar.
The stock market is trading. Capitalism has to do with the production of goods. You aren't even arguing about the same subject you think you are.
Have a nice day.
Perhaps because you can't read? I was saying that hypothetically if you're right, then supermarkets aren't capitalism, because they're trading not producing goods.
With that said: If you worked in the United States and were paid on a W-2 you're basically fucked.
You later state that you're not a lawyer (but you play on on slashdot). "Play" at being a lawyer is a good call. If the company released the code open-source while you're employed under a W-2, you can obtain the software under the open-source license, and that license continues to apply to the code that you obtained. They can relicense the code all they want, but they cannot revoke an open source license once already granted.
A good way to look at this is to forget the employment part, and just pretend that the individual is a completely independent party. I can fork a F/OSS project all I want, even if I never contributed any code to the original source. Even if the company later relicenses and the project is no longer being offered as F/OSS software, I can still fork off the code that I had from the original source.
Nothing about doing the work-for-hire means that the company could exclude you from the rights afforded all others in the open source license.
Why don't you just fork it from the latest version when it still had the GPL/MIT license and release it in a new project? This should be even easier in your situation, because the company decided to change the name of the software, which means you can simply keep using the old name for the new project. This also doesn't confuse users, as they will probably remember and recognize the software by name.
Once you've got the new project up and running, you can of course sue your old employer for distributing open source licensed software without the proper licence and source code.
First paragraph is golden. If the code was at one time released open source, then you can totally fork it.
Second paragraph is however wrong. If the company owns the copyright on the work then they can relicense it all they want, even if it were previously open source.
As per someone noting below: if you want to know your legal rights and what you can do, talk to a lawyer. What you'll get here is a bunch of IANALs telling you bullshit, and IAALbInYl (I Am A Lawyer, but I'm not YOUR lawyer) telling you generic advice that possibly doesn't apply, and that you need to speak to a lawyer who represents your interests.
I'm glad you brought science into this, because that is exactly where Austrian economics shines and Keynesian economics fails. Further, as far as I know nobody (except for you) has tried to make a credible claim that Austrian economics is essentially unfalsifiable. If you think that, then you really don't know much about it. A little history is in order.
Apparently, you can't click links, so here:
For example, Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, after examining the history of business cycles in the US, concluded that "The Hayek-Mises explanation of the business cycle is contradicted by the evidence. It is, I believe, false."[106][107][108] Nobel laureate Paul Krugman has also argued that the Austrian business cycle theory implies that consumption would increase during downturns, and cannot explain the empirical observation that spending declines in all sectors of the economy during a recession.[109]
Oh, and as for falsifiability:
A related criticism[5][100] is applied to Austrian School leaders; these leaders have advocated a rejection of methods which involve directly using empirical data in the development of (falsifiable) theories; application of empirical data is fundamental to the scientific method.[101]
Capitalism relates to the means of production and how that is financed. If your company does not produce some kind of goods or services (just as I stated earlier), then "capitalism" doesn't apply.
As noted above, then supermarkets are not capitalism.
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets.
Speculation and stock trading are services.
I could very well argue that a supermarket is not real capitalism, because they do not produce anything. Really, they just buy one product, and then sell it at a higher price to other people. Wow, sounds just like what stock traders do!
I won't argue that HFT is a disease, and speculation is the cause of nearly all economic misery in modern times, because it's demonstrable fact.
However, you can't just reject it as "capitalism" because it makes the word look bad. You have to have valid and rational reasons why one should reject speculation from the definition of capitalism. And honestly, you haven't made any rigorous argument to that effect. Just a bunch of hand waving, saying "THIS ISN'T CAPITALISM, CAPITALISM WORKS, SINCE THIS DIDN'T WORK, IT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT CAPITALISM!!!"
Slashdot Mirror
Relying on Slashdot for legal advice ? Not wise.
This. More so, specifically, don't assume that since the disclaimer says they last 20 years that that means that it has expired. I could put a disclaimer that says that the patents last for only 5 years, then you go "oh, it's not patented anymore!" And reimplement it, and then I sue you for knowingly violating my patent. Why? All because you took legal advice from the very person you would end up being a defendant against.
Stop looking at patents, you idiot. Actively looking at patents and then violating someone's patent means that you "knew or should have known" of the other patent, infringed on it deliberately, and are now liable for triple damages. This is in contrast to "incidental" infringement of someone's patent.
While this the default good advice regarding patents, I don't think he went out of his way to find this patent, because he likely has seen tons of code that is patented, this is just the first that he's aware of. Which makes me think that the notice was in the code. Which is actually a good idea for patented code. "They copied my code, which includes a patent notice, which means that they were aware that it was a patent violation, and therefore open to triple damages."
(Note: although the above code might imply that I support software patents, I don't. It's a "good idea" for patent trolls.)
"Oddly, I don't know how you could then make the claim: "Further, as far as I know nobody (except for you) has tried to make a credible claim that Austrian economics is essentially unfalsifiable." when the very article that you referenced yourself contained details and knowledge about someone other than me (and significantly more credible) making the claim that Austrian economics is unfalsifiable."
The key word there is "credible".
I don't care if God made the claims, if they contradict verifiable facts. That's not credible.
But it's not just the Nobel laureates and I making this assertion either:
Ludwig von Mises wrote of his theory, "its statements and propositions are not derived from experience... They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts." F.A. Hayek wrote that any theories in the social sciences can "never be verified or falsified by reference to facts."
So, are the very designers and foundation layers for Austrian School now not "credible" either? They seem to agree with me that it's unfalsifiable...
Sure, I wouldn't take legal advice from a dude named "Cocknozzle" either.
... best advice ever? lol ;)
Further, I repeat: I gave you simple facts that you can verify yourself. If you don't understand the role of facts in a debate, as opposed to rhetoric, then it is not I who is getting it wrong.
Nostradamus predicted the promotion of a cardinal. (Or something to that effect.) See? That means Nostradamus's predictions are CORRECT and they're RIGHT. So we should believe all his predictions!
Or wait. Perhaps he just got lucky... and perhaps Austrian school just got lucky... you know, but always predicting doom...
"The details of your Austrian school economics are of little interest to me."
This is the most hypocritical statement you have made so far. If you have no interest, why are you expending so much effort in the process?
Because I'm a pedant. We could be arguing over the ratio of sodium to chlorine in table salt for all I care. What I do care about is you playing semantic games wrong. If you can't be a pedantic bitch about your terminology and debate, then don't play semantic games.
You made a claim about what "capitalism" means. I thought the argument stupid. I've been arguing about your argument this entire time.
Further, I repeat: I gave you simple facts that you can verify yourself. If you don't understand the role of facts in a debate, as opposed to rhetoric, then it is not I who is getting it wrong.
The Austrian school has espoused the downfall and collapse of the economic market forever, and surprise, surprise, when it actually does fail, they claim credit for having seen it coming. If you're always predicting doom, then eventually you're going to be right, because at some point, everything comes to doom.
You want to debate facts and not engage in rhetoric? They why would you even get involved with the Austrian school. Their praxeology, around which the entire school was built, is all about rhetoric rather than mathematical, and scientific models...
"Oddly, I don't know how you could then make the claim: "Further, as far as I know nobody (except for you) has tried to make a credible claim that Austrian economics is essentially unfalsifiable." when the very article that you referenced yourself contained details and knowledge about someone other than me (and significantly more credible) making the claim that Austrian economics is unfalsifiable."
The key word there is "credible".
I don't care if God made the claims, if they contradict verifiable facts. That's not credible.
Ah... so now we redefine "credible" to get out of the moral quandary of you being either a deceitful liar, or an ignorant moron.
This whole "conversation" started out with my assertion that speculative money trading was not "capitalism", because it had little or nothing to do with the production of goods.
You took issue with that, because your definition of "capitalism", apparently, was simply trade. Which is FALSE.
No, that's not my definition of "capitalism", I have not laid out a definition of capitalism. I've simply objected to your definition being a good definition. Definitions are never ever EVER "false". There are however "good" and "bad" definitions.
Supermarkets have everything to do with capitalism, because they deal in the trade of GOODS.
So, the commodities market has everything to do with capitalism, because they deal in the trade of GOODS? But wait, there has been speculative trading even in the commodities markets as well...
And I am done here. You have been doing so many contortionist verbal gymnastics to try to support unsupportable arguments, it is a complete waste of my time to be doing this.
I'm not the one doing contortionist verbal gymnastics. In fact, it's the Austrian school that holds to the idea that models don't need to be mathematically modeled and empirically validated, but rather than simply through praxeology you can get to the truth, right?
First paragraph is golden. If the code was at one time released open source, then you can totally fork it.
What if he can't prove he had the right to release it as Open Source in the first place?
And this is why one needs to speak with a lawyer. These sorts of details can potentially derail anything. But honestly, it's highly unlikely that this is the case, and the automatic assumption would be that if none of his superiors raised a stink that they implicitly authorized his behavior as an agent of the company. Again: I don't know the details, I'm just laying out what's most likely. (And even then it's only at about 10~20% likelihood.)
As per someone noting below: if you want to know your legal rights and what you can do, talk to a lawyer. What you'll get here is a bunch of IANALs telling you bullshit, and IAALbInYl (I Am A Lawyer, but I'm not YOUR lawyer) telling you generic advice that possibly doesn't apply, and that you need to speak to a lawyer who represents your interests.
Sanest advice in the entire thread. Only your lawyer represents your interest and that's whose advice you should seek and listen to.
Not just "only your lawyer represents your interests" but there are a lot of details to every single legal case that could change the rules wildly. Only your lawyer knows the details and is representing your interests at the same time.
no, i don't think they can arbitrarily put a new, more restrictive license on it, what happens to those who are using it under gpl? with name change and ~some modification it is a different product, but the gpled portion is still gpl. if they can prove that the developer was not within his rights to assign a license, they can do whatever they want, though.
The developer (in this situation) doesn't own the copyrights. The company does, and someone can always relicense a copyrighted work, even if that new license is a contradiction of the old licenses. But the old licenses remain in effect, and so the old licenses still apply for the older works.
Take this as an clarifying example: company writes a program XY, and releases it under the GPL. Employee A leaves company. Other employees continue to develop and expand program XY. Company later decides to rename the program ZZ, and release it under a proprietary license that lets them keep the source code secret. Other employees can still continue to work on and develop what is now program ZZ, and those changes are kept secret. Employee A, can fork program XY to the last GPL release, and create a competing project. He cannot however sue the company for not releasing program ZZ as open source because it is based on open source software. This is because the company owns the copyrights to the original program and can do whatever they want with it, including turning it into a closed source project.
Second paragraph is however wrong. If the company owns the copyright on the work then they can relicense it all they want, even if it were previously open source.
I assumed the grandparent was referring to releasing the ex-employees new changes, after the fork.
The ex-employee is perfectly free to release his new changes. He obviously can't release the newer changes that the company made, if they own the copyright, and relicensed.
Loses and expenses can be taken against winnings. I'm not sure if that includes the cost of the winning ticket, but let's assume not.
If the average winning ticket is worth $1000 (a number I just pulled out of my butt after having RTFA in the paper yesterday; I don't recall if it gives an actual average pay-out per ticket), $280,000 means 280 winning tickets. Which also means 99,720 losing tickets.
At $2 per ticket, they pay taxes on $280,000 - 199,440 = 80,560.
There's an easier way. All the tickets are tax deductible except the ones that win. At 280 tickets, at $2 each, that's $560. Which means you pay taxes on the net gain: $80,000, plus the cost of the winning tickets, $560 = $80,560
Ludwig von Mises wrote of his theory, "its statements and propositions are not derived from experience... They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts." F.A. Hayek wrote that any theories in the social sciences can "never be verified or falsified by reference to facts."
Shall you argue with your own demi-gods about if Austrian school is falsifiable or not? They appear to have taken a position opposite to your own. (That's fine, Darwin was wrong about a lot of things as well, and I would nitpick a few issues with him if I had the chance.) But none the less, as conceived the historic definition of "Austrian school economics" clearly was intended to eschew falsifiability...
All quite very true, and the precise reason why he should consult with a lawyer with whom he can lay down the details and untie the rats' nest.
Good lord, a girl AND a lawyer wrapped into one on SLASHDOT?!?
You'd think it was April 1st or something!
Actually, IANAL... I'm just a pedant.
Hint, by the way:
If you want to make any actual refutation, you are going to have to dig a little deeper than just Wikipedia.
"Appeal to authority", indeed.
I don't have to dig deeper than wikipedia to refute your claim that _I_, snowgirl, am the only person that you know about, making a credible claim that Austrian school is unfalsifiable. I'm patently not alone in this assertion (especially considering that the assertion is not my own, but that of nobel laureates).
The details of your Austrian school economics are of little interest to me. It's the details in the simple process of debate that you keep getting wrong that interest me.
"Apparently, you can't click links, so here:"
An interesting thing to say, since I referred to the same Wikipedia entry in my reply.
Oddly, I don't know how you could then make the claim: "Further, as far as I know nobody (except for you) has tried to make a credible claim that Austrian economics is essentially unfalsifiable." when the very article that you referenced yourself contained details and knowledge about someone other than me (and significantly more credible) making the claim that Austrian economics is unfalsifiable.
So, let's cut the bullshit right here. There are credible people (nobel laureates no less) who think that Austrian school lacks rigor, and is fundamentally unfalsifiable. These claims are not my own, and I am not the only one making them. Therefore your statement "Further, as far as I know nobody (except for you) has tried to make a credible claim that Austrian economics is essentially unfalsifiable." is fundamentally inconsistent with facts. But wait, if you knew this statement was false when you made it, then you willfully made a statement that was false with intent for it to be accepted as true. What's the word for that? Oh yeah, LYING.
Wait, I just though of a way that I could be wrong. Perhaps you just happened to not know anything about any of the criticism of Austrian school. That would keep your statement consistent with facts. Sure there are credible claims that Austrian school is unfalsifiable, and the people making those claims aren't me, but you were just unaware of them. Although, now that I think about it, this idea seems a bit foolish, since it requires assuming that you are willfully walking into confirmation bias by ignoring all criticism of your position.
So, crap, it may just be a lack of imagination here, but I only see two possibilities... either you're an idiot, and ignorant of all criticism of your pet economic model, or you're a dishonest liar.
This isn't even worth arguing with.
The stock market is trading. Capitalism has to do with the production of goods. You aren't even arguing about the same subject you think you are.
Have a nice day.
Perhaps because you can't read? I was saying that hypothetically if you're right, then supermarkets aren't capitalism, because they're trading not producing goods.
With that said: If you worked in the United States and were paid on a W-2 you're basically fucked.
You later state that you're not a lawyer (but you play on on slashdot). "Play" at being a lawyer is a good call. If the company released the code open-source while you're employed under a W-2, you can obtain the software under the open-source license, and that license continues to apply to the code that you obtained. They can relicense the code all they want, but they cannot revoke an open source license once already granted.
A good way to look at this is to forget the employment part, and just pretend that the individual is a completely independent party. I can fork a F/OSS project all I want, even if I never contributed any code to the original source. Even if the company later relicenses and the project is no longer being offered as F/OSS software, I can still fork off the code that I had from the original source.
Nothing about doing the work-for-hire means that the company could exclude you from the rights afforded all others in the open source license.
Why don't you just fork it from the latest version when it still had the GPL/MIT license and release it in a new project? This should be even easier in your situation, because the company decided to change the name of the software, which means you can simply keep using the old name for the new project. This also doesn't confuse users, as they will probably remember and recognize the software by name.
Once you've got the new project up and running, you can of course sue your old employer for distributing open source licensed software without the proper licence and source code.
First paragraph is golden. If the code was at one time released open source, then you can totally fork it.
Second paragraph is however wrong. If the company owns the copyright on the work then they can relicense it all they want, even if it were previously open source.
As per someone noting below: if you want to know your legal rights and what you can do, talk to a lawyer. What you'll get here is a bunch of IANALs telling you bullshit, and IAALbInYl (I Am A Lawyer, but I'm not YOUR lawyer) telling you generic advice that possibly doesn't apply, and that you need to speak to a lawyer who represents your interests.
I'm glad you brought science into this, because that is exactly where Austrian economics shines and Keynesian economics fails. Further, as far as I know nobody (except for you) has tried to make a credible claim that Austrian economics is essentially unfalsifiable. If you think that, then you really don't know much about it. A little history is in order.
Apparently, you can't click links, so here:
For example, Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, after examining the history of business cycles in the US, concluded that "The Hayek-Mises explanation of the business cycle is contradicted by the evidence. It is, I believe, false."[106][107][108] Nobel laureate Paul Krugman has also argued that the Austrian business cycle theory implies that consumption would increase during downturns, and cannot explain the empirical observation that spending declines in all sectors of the economy during a recession.[109]
Oh, and as for falsifiability:
A related criticism[5][100] is applied to Austrian School leaders; these leaders have advocated a rejection of methods which involve directly using empirical data in the development of (falsifiable) theories; application of empirical data is fundamental to the scientific method.[101]
Capitalism relates to the means of production and how that is financed. If your company does not produce some kind of goods or services (just as I stated earlier), then "capitalism" doesn't apply.
As noted above, then supermarkets are not capitalism.
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets.
Speculation and stock trading are services.
I could very well argue that a supermarket is not real capitalism, because they do not produce anything. Really, they just buy one product, and then sell it at a higher price to other people. Wow, sounds just like what stock traders do!
I won't argue that HFT is a disease, and speculation is the cause of nearly all economic misery in modern times, because it's demonstrable fact.
However, you can't just reject it as "capitalism" because it makes the word look bad. You have to have valid and rational reasons why one should reject speculation from the definition of capitalism. And honestly, you haven't made any rigorous argument to that effect. Just a bunch of hand waving, saying "THIS ISN'T CAPITALISM, CAPITALISM WORKS, SINCE THIS DIDN'T WORK, IT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT CAPITALISM!!!"