Live data from Hacker News

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

github.com

131–140 of 162 posts

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

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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).

What you are saying is partly true and overly simplified. Are you a lawyer? Do you have legal expertise? If not, I don't understand why you feel compelled to advise on things you understand so little yourself? Are you going to compare my contract with my vendor with speeding ticket? Are you kidding me?

Comparing contractual liability to speeding fines makes me think you have not a clue of what you're talking about. Speeding penalties are statutory and predefined. Commercial liability usually is not. In Europe, most serious business disputes never go near small claims courts. They go to ordinary civil courts or arbitration, where damages depend on the contract, applicable law, and the specific facts. There is often no automatic cap unless the contract explicitly sets one, and even then its enforceability depends on jurisdiction and circumstances.

Small claims limits only restrict which court hears the case, not the total liability. A claimant can often file in a higher court or pursue related claims elsewhere. And in cross-border European business, jurisdiction, governing law, and enforcement become additional risks. Getting this wrong can expose you to far more liability than you expected.

Liability is not limited by your personal understanding of the law. That is why businesses do not rely on guesswork. Contracts are reviewed, liability caps are negotiated, insurance is obtained and lawyers are paid to spot risks that non-lawyers routinely miss.

> If that is your concern, you shouldn't be doing business anywhere, US or otherwise.

Yes, that is my concern. I do business in Europe. By paying actual laywers. And I'll continue to do so. Thank you very much.

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

#132

I am not a lawyer. My reading of the license is: either (a) buy a license or (b) be bound by the AGPLv3 -- with _very_ limited exceptions. So, my question is: are the people that are upset with the "ambiguity" people who neither (a) want to buy a license nor (b) be bound by the AGPLv3? If so, I have no sympathy.

> So, my question is: are the people that are upset with the "ambiguity" people who neither > (a) want to buy a license nor > (b) be bound by the AGPLv3? No and no. People first want to know what the correct licenses are even before deciding which licensing path (including buying a commercial license) to take. You don't just commit to buying a commercial license without first understanding your options and comparing…

>> So, my question is: are the people that are upset with the "ambiguity" people who neither (a) want to buy a license nor (b) be bound by the AGPLv3?

> No and no.

[...]

>> If so, I have no sympathy.

> Your sympathy means nothing to me

Well, regardless... via the rules of logical implication, you have it.

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

#133
post #105
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?

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…

yes that was me! I love that quote (it's by samuel johnson), so it's really moving to hear it made an impression on someone else too. here it is:

What signifies, says some one, giving halfpence to beggars? they only lay it out in gin or tobacco. "And why should they be denied such sweeteners of their existence (says Johnson)? it is surely very savage to refuse them every possible avenue to pleasure, reckoned too coarse for our own acceptance. Life is a pill which none of us can bear to swallow without gilding; yet for the poor we delight in stripping it still barer, and are not ashamed to shew even visible displeasure, if ever the bitter taste is taken from their mouths."

-- Piozzi: Anecdotes

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

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, my question is: are the people that are upset with the "ambiguity" people who neither > (a) want to buy a license nor > (b) be bound by the AGPLv3? No and no. People first want to know what the correct licenses are even before deciding which licensing path (including buying a commercial license) to take. You don't just commit to buying a commercial license without first understanding your options and comparing…

>> So, my question is: are the people that are upset with the "ambiguity" people who neither (a) want to buy a license nor (b) be bound by the AGPLv3? > No and no. [...] >> If so, I have no sympathy. > Your sympathy means nothing to me Well, regardless... via the rules of logical implication, you have it.

Hah! I made a logical error. I should have said:

Well, regardless... via the rules of logical implication, you can't be certain that you don't have it.

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

#135

I'm already shutting down my private instance of Mattermost, no thank you. I'm thinking of Zulip, at least they aren't pulling this shenanigans.

I run a Zulip server and it's pretty good. The way they organise channels is extremely convoluted unfortunately (I wish they would just use absolutely standard channels layout like every other chat, and have everyone able to see them on join!) but well, beggars can't be choosers.

Interesting, I've also heard the exact opposite opinion [0] where Zulip’s non-standard approach is seen as its main strength.

[0]: https://chaos.social/@yorgos/115931944888149528

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

#137
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's good English, it has actual meaning (your thinking of "at this time" is only one interpretation, it more likely means "We're not entertaining changes of that kind/nature" )

Ah, so any changes they did entertain, would be changes, but they disclaim making changes such as these for this purpose?

> so any changes they did entertain

I guess, as long as people remember that zero is a possible number in 'any'

> but they disclaim making changes such as these for this purpose?

That's my read

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

#138
post #133
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

yes that was me! I love that quote (it's by samuel johnson), so it's really moving to hear it made an impression on someone else too. here it is: What signifies, says some one, giving halfpence to beggars? they only lay it out in gin or tobacco. "And why should they be denied such sweeteners of their existence (says Johnson)? it is surely very savage to refuse them every possible avenue to pleasure, reckoned too coar…

Ha, perfect! Well that's one mystery solved. Thank you.

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

#139
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…

it's sleazy because the intent wasn't to be properly credited, it was to use a loophole in the CC-BY-SA license to sue people for minor typos or mistakes in the exact form of the attribution even when they had clearly intended to give proper attribution.

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

#140
post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah! I see. My biggest annoyance was none of the derivatives ever made it back to the commons.
Post reply on HN