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

121–130 of 162 posts

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

#121

Post by arjie »

tecoholic wrote: post #115
zem wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don’t understand why this is sleazy TBH. It’s CC-BY-SA. If attribution isn’t provided it’s a valid case. I once uploaded a map of my state with all the districts in labels in English and my language Tamil to commons under CC-BY-SA. It was used left right and centre, from publications, map sellers to the point I can see them hanging in offices. It’s always pained me, nothing could be done about it. Now I didn’t want…

CC-BY-SA-4.0 fixes the specific technique of spreading one's work through the commons and then charging for inadequate attribution by allowing for a 30 day cure period on notification. This anti-copyleft-troll clause should likely permit your use-case.

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

#122

Post by throwaway89201 »

mring33621 wrote: post #113

Ok, their license is pretty strange: https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/blob/master/LICENSE... MIT for binaries distributed by Mattermost. But, if you compile it yourself: GNU AGPL v3.0 XOR Paid-for Enterprise License Then, for some odd reason, they append the text of Apache License Version 2.0!!!

The frontend parts are explicitly and correctly licensed under the Apache license in the header of the same file.

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

#123

Post by zdragnar »

throwaway150 wrote: post #104
dijit wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Liability is capped by court (e.g. small claims court) or by specific claim type depending on the legislation of the jurisdiction (e.g. speeding tickets typically have set fines varying by state).

Liability is not capped by your ability to understand the law. If that is your concern, you shouldn't be doing business anywhere, US or otherwise.

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

#124

Post by throwaway150 »

eikenberry wrote: post #69
almosthere wrote: post #52

if there is no license, then it is public domain if they put code on a website

This is not true in the US where everything is automatically copyrighted and protected, so nothing goes directly into the public domain (even if the author wants it). Thus no license means that you have no license to use the code legally.

Correct. That's not true in Europe either. IIRC it's not true in Asia either. I don't understand why so many people who don't have even the most basic understanding or experience of licensing feel they must post their opinion as if they were facts. People are certainly entitled to their opinion. But so many comments here are speaking absolute nonsense about licensing as if they were facts. I genuinely don't understand why people feel compelled to do so.

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

#125

Post by godelski »

throwaway89201 wrote: post #114
godelski wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> But maybe I'm misunderstanding? If so, I don't know what I'm missing You're apparently missing the two points I made in the post you are replying to, or at the very least you're not responding to them. By which I don't mean to say they are necessarily valid points.

My bad, I was confused given the context of the comment you responded to. Maybe I should quote the next line instead?

  You are licensed to use the source code in Admin Tools and Configuration Files (server/templates/, server/i18n/, server/public/, webapp/ and all subdirectories thereof) under the Apache License v2.0.
So I read

  Apache (OSS):
    |- server/
    | |- i18n/
    | |- public/
    | |- templates/
    |- webapp/

  Not Apache (pay us/not OSS):
    |- api/
    |- e2e-tests/
    |- server/
    | |- bin/
    | |- build/
    | |- cmd/
    | |- enterprise/
    | |- scripts/
    | |- Makefile
    | |- path.go
    | |- this is not a complete list but you get the point
    |- tools/
Part of the code is open source. Part of the code is source available (source visible).

Again, I am open to misunderstanding but that's my read.

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

#126

Post by godelski »

corranh wrote: post #117
homarp wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how you jump from AGPL to apache?

The commenter doesn’t jump to Apache, the license does…if you scroll down it’s the Apache license not the AGPL.

For anyone that needs the link: https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/blob/master/LICENSE...

Also note that they have an enterprise license (/server/enterprise/License): https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/blob/master/server/...

The README on the enterprise directory also links to a page with more detail (FAQ): https://docs.mattermost.com/product-overview/frequently-aske...

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

#127

Post by zem »

teraflop wrote: post #120
zem wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If you read the discussion, they weren't kept because of their encyclopedic value, or because they were "widespread". I'm not sure why the parent commenter said that. They were kept to preserve a record of their having been uploaded, and to not create a legal risk for third parties who might be relying on the Commons page as their way to provide attribution. The original proposal was to keep the image pages with the…

ah thanks, that makes a lot of sense.

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

#128

Post by mring33621 »

throwaway89201 wrote: post #122
mring33621 wrote: post #113

Ok, their license is pretty strange: https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/blob/master/LICENSE... MIT for binaries distributed by Mattermost. But, if you compile it yourself: GNU AGPL v3.0 XOR Paid-for Enterprise License Then, for some odd reason, they append the text of Apache License Version 2.0!!!

The frontend parts are explicitly and correctly licensed under the Apache license in the header of the same file.

Ooh, I see it now, right in the middle:

"...You are licensed to use the source code in Admin Tools and Configuration Files (server/templates/, server/i18n/, server/public/, webapp/ and all subdirectories thereof) under the Apache License v2.0...."

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

#129

Post by godelski »

throwaway89201 wrote: post #122
mring33621 wrote: post #113

Ok, their license is pretty strange: https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/blob/master/LICENSE... MIT for binaries distributed by Mattermost. But, if you compile it yourself: GNU AGPL v3.0 XOR Paid-for Enterprise License Then, for some odd reason, they append the text of Apache License Version 2.0!!!

The frontend parts are explicitly and correctly licensed under the Apache license in the header of the same file.

They also have a FAQ: https://docs.mattermost.com/product-overview/faq-license.htm...

Note that they have multiple licenses. This isn't entirely uncommon. The difference licenses apply to different things.

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

#130

Post by redwall_hp »

eikenberry wrote: post #69
almosthere wrote: post #52

if there is no license, then it is public domain if they put code on a website

This is not true in the US where everything is automatically copyrighted and protected, so nothing goes directly into the public domain (even if the author wants it). Thus no license means that you have no license to use the code legally.

Or any country the US has a reciprocal copyright treaty with, which is all but a vanishingly small set of countries.

A work is protected by copyright the moment it's authored, and all rights are reserved unless it's explicitly licensed otherwise.

Post reply on HN