It would frighten me having Kurtzer doing legalities, given his bizarre legal theory on copyright specifically (no longer recorded in the issues of a deleted github repo for me to reference).

Can you elaborate on my bizarre legal theory on copyrights?

Thanks.

Sorry, I don't know why I missed off the sentence. The statement was that putting something under the Berkeley licence used by Singularity made it public domain, i.e. they could strip my employer's copyright, specifically. No answer to whether that was speaking for LBL legal.

Sorry, I don't remember the specific instance of what happened there, but specifically Singularity was never technically "public domain". It was always copyrighted and licensed (firstly with the DOE/LBL license based on the 3-clause BSD license, then just BSD3).

Was the issue on the project copyright, or was it the copyright in the source files?

While I have some experience in open source and copyright, I'm certainly no expert nor do I claim to be. Luckily I have people I can rely on for advice and guidance (e.g. back then, it was probably LBL/UCOP's Tech Transfer), but sometimes things still get mucked up.

Sorry if there was a miscommunication or an error on my part back then.

That's pretty opaque. :(