Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

LICENSE: _may be_ licensed to use source code; incorrect license grant

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 162 posts

Re: LICENSE: _may be_ licensed to use source code; incorrect license grant

#101

Post by throwaway150 »

bombcar wrote: post #96
throwaway150 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking only for myself here. But I don't have the arrogance to assume that I can interpret legalese the way I interpret English. When shit goes to court, saying here's what I thought "may" means is not going to be a legal defense strategy. There's a reason I hire lawyers for this kind of shit because they are really good at their job and I won't pretend I know their job better than they do.

> saying here's I thought "may" means is not going to be a legal defense strategy It is - it might not be successful (the court may rule against you) - but if what you thought "may" meant was close to what a "reasonable person" would have thought, you may be ruled against with no or low penalty.

> It is - it might not be successful (the court may rule against you)

Exactly what I said.

Re: LICENSE: _may be_ licensed to use source code; incorrect license grant

#102

Post by dijit »

throwaway150 wrote: post #91
jrmg wrote: post #61

It seems obvious that this ‘may’ is the ‘may’ used in the sense of granting permission: “you may go to the restroom”, “you may begin eating”, “you may ask questions now”, “you may kiss the bride” etc. All these are clear. The wedding officiant isn’t saying “You might have permission to kiss the bride! Just try it and we’ll find out! Ha ha!” To interpret this as saying that you might be licensed is just as nonsensical…

Speaking only for myself here. But I don't have the arrogance to assume that I can interpret legalese the way I interpret English. When shit goes to court, saying here's what I thought "may" means is not going to be a legal defense strategy. There's a reason I hire lawyers for this kind of shit because they are really good at their job and I won't pretend I know their job better than they do.

you'd be surprised how much your command of the english language translates into legalise.

Yes, there's a definite codex of legal terms that have specific legal meaning but sound like "open to interpretation" english, but, those are vanishingly small.

Largely, if you read defensively and try to read what is not said, then you get very very far.

Source: spent about half-a-decade with very expensive swiss lawyers.

Re: LICENSE: _may be_ licensed to use source code; incorrect license grant

#103

Post by leoedin »

ethin wrote: post #48
michaelt wrote: post #16

To me, this seems kinda reasonable. The reality is licenses are all nonsense and none of it makes any sense. There could be secret patents nobody knows about. That precise wording written by American lawyers might not hold up in Chinese courts. There might be two compatible licenses, but one is 20x the length of the other; obviously some legal expert thought those extra words were needed - but are they? What's going…

It isn't really reasonable though. The word "may" implies possibility, not absolutism. So reading the sentence logically, at least to me, saying that I "may be" able to license it under the AGPL means that I might or might not be able to do that... And I have no way of knowing if I can or can't unless I... What, contact them?

I think in this case it implies choice for the user. There’s an implied “if you want to”. You may use this software if you want to in one of two ways:

That’s pretty clear to me (a native speaker from the UK) - i can’t really see how else it could be interpreted. As another poster said, it’s the same “may” as “you may go to the washroom” or “you may enter now” - which implies consent from the speaker.

Re: LICENSE: _may be_ licensed to use source code; incorrect license grant

#104

Post by throwaway150 »

dijit wrote: post #102
throwaway150 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking only for myself here. But I don't have the arrogance to assume that I can interpret legalese the way I interpret English. When shit goes to court, saying here's what I thought "may" means is not going to be a legal defense strategy. There's a reason I hire lawyers for this kind of shit because they are really good at their job and I won't pretend I know their job better than they do.

you'd be surprised how much your command of the english language translates into legalise. Yes, there's a definite codex of legal terms that have specific legal meaning but sound like "open to interpretation" english, but, those are vanishingly small. Largely, if you read defensively and try to read what is not said, then you get very very far. Source: spent about half-a-decade with very expensive swiss lawyers.

> Largely, if you read defensively and try to read what is not said, then you get very very far.

How far is "very, very far"? Is it far enough that, if there were a lawsuit, my liability would truly be capped at €10,000? Because that's how much liability I can afford. If that "very very far" guarantees such a limit, then yes, I agree it is very very far. But my experience tells me that without formal legal training, I cannot be confident that I have interpreted legal language correctly enough to rely on that conclusion.

Open source licenses are often relatively readable, but corporate contracts and other legal texts, including those from companies that market themselves as open source in questionable ways, can contain subtleties and loopholes. As a layperson, it is difficult to know how much exposure I might have if I misunderstand a detail and act in contradiction of the license terms.

Perhaps we are simply on opposite sides of the D-K effect here. Or maybe you simply are good with legalese and I'm being unnecessarily skeptical.

If experience with lawyers matters, I have spent many years working with lawyers across Europe. If that taught me anything, it is to avoid assuming that I can reliably interpret legal language without proper training.

Yes, I can usually grasp perhaps 80 percent of what a contract is saying at a high level. But in every contract we reviewed, lawyers consistently found issues or implications I would not have noticed. They then either refined the contract or advised taking a calculated risk. So I think it is reasonable for me to remain cautious about my own ability to interpret legal language with confidence.

Re: LICENSE: _may be_ licensed to use source code; incorrect license grant

#105

Post by arjie »

zem wrote: post #73
arjie wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh that's a classic trick. It's been going on for decades. One example I am particularly familiar with is that of Larry Philpot / User:Nightshooter on Wikimedia Commons. He would upload his photos there with an addendum on how he should be attributed. Any slight impression in the attribution would be followed by legal action. It was obviously a copyright troll mechanism and now all of his photos on Wikimedia Commons…

I am honestly flabbergasted that his pictures weren't expunged with great prejudice. what is the value they add to wikimedia that makes being associated with this sort of sleaze okay?

A valid question. These kinds of approaches are a pretty standard attack in the copyleft world. I don't know on what basis the community chooses forced-attribution vs deletion.

Marco Verch managed to get his stuff deleted: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests...

So it's a question of the execution of the operation really.

By the way, do you also have the same user handle on Reddit? I have the vaguest memory of you quoting someone else on the subject of denying a person suffering on the street drugs that went something to the effect of not wanting to do it because denying such a man drugs deny him his only escape from such reality or something of the sort.

I never did find that comment again, and it's been at the back of my mind for years (perhaps even a decade) and now I'm not even sure if I've asked you this before.

Re: LICENSE: _may be_ licensed to use source code; incorrect license grant

#106

Post by comex »

throwaway150 wrote: post #40
Fnoord wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It used to be like that, yes. If you didn't mention the license, it was in public domain. Those times are long gone though.

> If you didn't mention the license, it was in public domain. I don't think this has ever been the case. If a license is not mentioned, it is always "All rights reserved" by the authors of the project, by the Berne convention (1886).

However, the United States did not join the Berne Convention until 1988, and prior to 1978 it did not automatically grant federal copyright when a work was created; instead you had to register your work with the Copyright Office in order to receive federal protection. There were also some state-level protections at the time that did not require registration, but apparently they weren't very strong.

Re: LICENSE: _may be_ licensed to use source code; incorrect license grant

#107

Post by grayhatter »

u1hcw9nx wrote: post #42

Not clarifying is the right thing to do. If the license is unclear, it should be fixed by a lawyer who knows what they are doing. Nobody else in the company should try to explain what the license actually means. Trying to explain a license creates informal interpretations and a legal paper trail that can confuse things even more and be used against the company later. It can even create a new contract under some juris…

> Not clarifying is the right thing to do.

Legally? Likely not. Ethically, definitely not.

Legally, (in the US at least,) any ambiguity in the interpretation of a contract will most often be interpreted to benefit of the party that didn't draft the contract. In this case, the interpretation of license would likely benefit the user. But then, I'm only repeating what you've already said. So the ambiguity here doesn't benefit them legally speaking. I do agree, a frontline engineer shouldn't be trying to clarify the legal meaning in a github issue (without the legal expertise a good legal team would contribute). I don't agree that leaving the understanding to be ambiguous, is a solid legal decision.

Then, ethically. If someone ask if the license is trying to trap them, and all you do is shrug. You're not the good guy, ethically speaking.

> This is why using standard well drafted licenses verbatim is so useful. Legal phrases that have established meanings clear things up for legally even if they confuse the rest of us.

This may be pedantically true, but the part that trumps the US doctrine of contra proferentem, is the original intent that both parties likely understood. The legal interpretation, while you say it may be confusing for some people, doesn't override what the parties reasonably understood the contract to state. Or in this case, license, to grant.

That is to say, if you represent your offering as open source, and enjoy the benefits of such. It's a fundamental error to assume the courts will later back you up when you change your mind, and attempt a rug pull. And that's ignoring the ethical implications, which are enough for me to wanna peace out. (I.e. if you're pissing off your users and supporters, it was the wrong decision.)

Re: LICENSE: _may be_ licensed to use source code; incorrect license grant

#108

Post by godelski »

throwaway89201 wrote: post #100
jrmg wrote: post #61

It seems obvious that this ‘may’ is the ‘may’ used in the sense of granting permission: “you may go to the restroom”, “you may begin eating”, “you may ask questions now”, “you may kiss the bride” etc. All these are clear. The wedding officiant isn’t saying “You might have permission to kiss the bride! Just try it and we’ll find out! Ha ha!” To interpret this as saying that you might be licensed is just as nonsensical…

The counterpoint is that three sentences away, there's a clear "You are licensed to use the source code" for the non-server parts. It can certainly be argued that there's an intentional difference. Extended court cases have been fought over mere punctuation. In any case, the FUD that this creates is enough to make anyone think twice about reusing the server code, especially as they have refused to clarify for many ye…

  You may be licensed to use source code to create compiled versions not produced by Mattermost, Inc. in one of two ways:

  1. Under the Free Software Foundation’s GNU AGPL v3.0, subject to the exceptions outlined in this policy; or
  2. Under a commercial license available from Mattermost, Inc. by contacting commercial@mattermost.com
My read: We provide you with two options, either: 1. Follow Apache License 2. Pay us and you don't need to follow Apache License terms

This really seems like a dual license situation where they are saying "Let's encourage Open Source, but if you want to just use our work to make yourself rich and not even acknowledge you're using us then fuck you, pay us."

I expect this to become more common as companies routinely infringe on OSS licenses while simultaneously many companies are hesitant to use OSS because of licenses. This at least gives an out for the good actors and allow devs to make money (other than being reliant on donations, because... that's worked out...).

But maybe I'm misunderstanding? If so, I don't know what I'm missing

Re: LICENSE: _may be_ licensed to use source code; incorrect license grant

#110

Post by throwaway89201 »

lukan wrote: post #97
LamaOfRuin wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe they generally refer to themselves as open-core.

From this githubpage: "Mattermost is an open source platform for secure collaboration across the entire software development lifecycle.. "

But also: "open source" -> "open core" (9 months ago) [1]

[1] https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/commit/0cc906d07e73...

Post reply on HN