Hacker Read

tptacek · 2023-01-27 15:54:06

So this is a clean, complete win, right? Once the license controversy started, there was no reasonable ask beyond this outcome?

edraferi | karma 1861 | avg karma 3.11 · | 2020-03-30 11:59:33

Good answer. Nice to see licensing issues taken seriously.

tzs | karma 45790 | avg karma 3.13 · | 2014-06-06 06:03:04

The licensee says it was "very amicable" in his tweet on the matter, cited elsewhere in this discussion.

toyg | karma 35240 | avg karma 2.97 · | 2021-12-09 02:21:54

A breach of licensing contracts is not "illegal".

cqqxo4zV46cp | karma 1240 | avg karma 1.26 · | 2024-03-29 10:45:34

Yep. Precisely. Licenses are working as expected. People that spin this as “stealing” are simply showing their own lack of understanding.

redis_mlc | karma 1807 | avg karma 0.46 · | 2020-10-23 03:03:13+00:00

> Did you accept the agreement when installing?

That actually doesn't matter if the terms are unreasonable.

Courts commonly understand that one-sided unreasonable licenses are unenforceable when litigated.

reply

mixmastamyk | karma 12554 | avg karma 1.22 · | 2023-07-16 16:01:50

People are free to do as they like, including complain about unrealistic licenses.

xboxnolifes | karma 4360 | avg karma 1.98 · | 2023-12-28 03:14:31

no, it's an instance of the license doing exactly what it says it does.

dimonomid | karma 473 | avg karma 3.75 · | 2015-09-22 00:05:05+00:00

Agreed. I'm not a lawyer, so not sure about legality, but since this clause is persisted for so long in their license, it seems they have no problems with it.

_ph_ | karma 9798 | avg karma 2.44 · | 2019-11-18 11:02:05

While it is absolutely right to insist on the original license, I find it also a bit surprising they rather have their contribution removed than allowing a more liberal license.

kadoban | karma 6395 | avg karma 2.46 · | 2023-03-27 14:46:11

Is anyone complaining? Seems like they're just doing what you suggest, enforcing the license.

(ignoring that they may be wrong about the breaches of the license, I'm sure the lawyers will work that out)

reply

scrollaway | karma 28520 | avg karma 4.25 · | 2018-03-21 11:48:08+00:00

They're doing exactly what the license allows them to do: WTF they want. Which in this case, is not deal with it.

JoeAltmaier | karma 27896 | avg karma 1.44 · | 2010-07-08 14:14:52+00:00

No, that's the solution from a legal standpoint. The license is not longer vague.

jstummbillig | karma 3994 | avg karma 3.57 · | 2023-08-01 12:25:24

I don't think that is true but in any case: Honoring the license, which we are usually we particular around here, has to be enough on both ends. The license is up to the licenser. White knighting around it on an arbitrary per case basis is just awkward.

comex | karma 19146 | avg karma 4.18 · | 2023-10-13 22:54:46

They’re arguing that it’s part license part contract, not that it isn’t a license at all. The rest is as you say.

tonyedgecombe | karma 14463 | avg karma 1.72 · | 2019-05-07 22:06:53

That is an interesting point, I wonder who is wrong in their interpretation of the license.

barbs | karma 2415 | avg karma 2.34 · | 2020-04-26 23:34:54+00:00

I think it's less about whether or not they can get sued for breaching the license than it is about being transparent and trustworthy.

torstenvl | karma 7330 | avg karma 2.85 · | 2023-02-06 20:48:11

Yikes. I do not think you have thought through the implications of licensing (or purporting to license) under the union of three contradictory licenses.

I didn't read anything past that, because this is very much a "only way to win is not to play" kind of situation.

reply

detaro | karma 40664 | avg karma 1.79 · | 2021-07-20 20:59:56

That doesn't make any sense, given that they didn't change anything about the license, and the termination clauses are part of it.

detaro | karma 40664 | avg karma 1.79 · | 2022-12-05 11:13:47

If there is a "license agreement" which terms are under debate, there is a legal contract that was entered.