121–130 of 148 posts
Does anyone know of a similar breakdown for licences like GPL v2 and the like? It's a part of programming I feel like I should know more about but never took the time to look at.
It's called "A Practical Guide to WordPress and the GPL" and I must admit, it's easy to understand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Average has exactly the meaning it has in all other contexts. It seems to be a bizarrely common (and obviously incorrect) meme on HN that half of all elements of a set are below average.
>> It seems to be a bizarrely common (and obviously incorrect) meme on HN that half of all elements of a set are below average. When is that not the case? I'll grant you that not all distributions are "normal" distributions, so when is it not the case that 40 percent are not below average?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The CC0 license and the Unlicense attempt to do this with language to the effect of: > This work is placed in the public domain. > In regions where this is not possible, the author grants unlimited license to this work. Unfortunately, the CC0 explicitly does not waive patent rights, the Unlicense doesn't mention patents at all, the Blue Oak Model License and Apache 2.0 don't attempt to place the work into the public…
IANAL but I suspect the answer is that it's not clear if you can or how you can "aggressively waive all of the author's rights to their work" at least in some jurisdictions.
But it really ought to be drafted by professionals, and vetted by the wider community. None of this amateurish "crayon license" foolishness.
Creative Commons probably isn't interested. Their patent language was surely deliberate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With all due respect, you are just trying really hard to be pedantic. Your convoluted, contorted, corner-case example does not invalidate anything that was said here. You even had to resort to the word "rounded" to make it work. Without "rounded", most would be below mean.
Buying eggs is not a corner case. But buying 12.1 eggs certainly is. I think you're projecting a little bit here. In any case, "average" does not mean "arithmetic mean." It means, mathematically, any of the median, mode, or mean or in standard vernacular, of typical or usual characteristics (i.e., close to mode). You don't get to just arbitrarily pick a definition that fits your viewpoint and start going "all due res…
In this case we're not in a mathematical context though.
Why is there ''and/or'' in the MIT license text? Why is it needed? Does the phrase ''this permission notice'' cover the following disclaimer? Also, what is the shortest possible license that is functionally equivalent to the MIT license? The shortest ''license'' I've ever seen is this: https://git.suckless.org/dmenu/file/arg.h.html /* * Copy me if you can. * by 20h */ Is this really a license? What about the SQLite b…
It's a stupid lawyer thing. A lot of us still write like this. I'm sorry.
> Does the phrase ''this permission notice'' cover the following disclaimer?
Arguable, but why would anyone bother chopping off the disclaimer?
> Also, what is the shortest possible license that is functionally equivalent to the MIT license?
Form and function aren't so neatly separated in natural language.
> Is this really a license?
It's a cute suckless thing. They're edgy like that, among other ways.
> What about the SQLite blessing?
SQLite holds their work out as in the public domain. But you can buy a license (and some commercial guarantees) to make your company's lawyers happy: https://sqlite.org/purchase/license
> Lastly, as a result of this mishmash of legal, industry, general-intellectual-property, and general-use terms, it isn’t clear whether The MIT License includes a patent license. The general language “deal in” and some of the example verbs, especially “use”, point toward a patent license, albeit a very unclear one. I think this is a very carefully couched way of saying "the MIT license doesn't protect the licensee fr…
I'm with you on this, though. It doesn't have to be broke. We can fix it.
Blue Oak Council, a nonprofit I'm a part of, published a tier-ranked list of permissive licenses. All of those at the top handle patent explicitly: https://blueoakcouncil.org/list
We also published a model permissive license, which comes with a very explicit, very broad patent grant: https://blueoakcouncil.org/license/1.0.0
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Suppose I sell you an oil filter for your 2019 Mazda. When you get it home, you realize there's a big hole in it, and it can't be used to replace the one currently on your car. You call me up and I say "I never said it would work in a car, I just said it was an oil filter (true) which would fit into a 2019 Mazda (true)." The law says "nice try, you can't be that pedantic. The ordinary purpose of oil filters it to act…
Your example doesn't highlight something important about this though: they explicitly disclaim the "implied" warranty of merchantability in addition to disclaiming all warranties in general. In other words, that means that in your example, you hadn't merely declined to say it works in a car, but you had in fact already said "I guarantee NOTHING about this oil filter; it comes with absolutely NO WARRANTIES", and yet s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your example doesn't highlight something important about this though: they explicitly disclaim the "implied" warranty of merchantability in addition to disclaiming all warranties in general. In other words, that means that in your example, you hadn't merely declined to say it works in a car, but you had in fact already said "I guarantee NOTHING about this oil filter; it comes with absolutely NO WARRANTIES", and yet s…
I think it is quite obvious. "I guarantee NOTHING about this oil filter" still claims that it is an oil filter. Not just a mostly oil-filter-similar object.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article doesn't really get it right. This is what the UCC actually says: (2) Goods to be merchantable must be at least such as: (a) Pass without objection in the trade under the contract description; and (b) In the case of fungible goods, are of fair average quality within the description; and (c) Are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used; and (d) Run, within the variations permitted by the…
Thank you, this clarifies things. If I understand correctly, then, the requirement is that the average of a set of goods sold within a contract must be at least the quality specified by the contract. So it's not really talking about the average overall in a market of that good, it's talking specifically about the average quality of, say, a shipment of goods.
These are all default rules, like most of contract law. A particular contract can by its express terms lay down a different rule, such as disclaiming any warranty (as-is) or specifying its own terms of warranty (an express warranty).
[1] What you described is just a straight-up breach of contract, even in the absence of a warranty. If you order USDA Choice meat, a shipment of USDA Select meat is such a breach of contract. In agriculture, and especially outside of meat, some of a shipment will always fall outside of the quality range. This is dealt with in the grading definition. So when you buy USDA Grade AA eggs, that actually means that at least 72% of the eggs are AA, and of the remaining, 10% are at least A and the balance can be B (basically... see https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/shell-egg-grades-a... ).