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

141–150 of 162 posts

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

#141

Post by tecoholic »

zem wrote: post #139
tecoholic wrote: post #115

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…

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.

I get what you are saying now. That does makes a difference and actually hurts the copyleft culture.

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

#142

Post by foxglacier »

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…

But it is saying "You may be licensed to use source code..." which is analogous to "You may have permission to kiss the bride" if being licensed means having permission. It could mean that Mattermost may have licensed it to you in one way or the other, or neither, at their discretion. If it was written like a priest, it would have said "You may use the source code..." and this doubt wouldn't exist.

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

#143

Post by ethin »

KolmogorovComp wrote: post #99
ethin wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't that license also violate the AGPL? I mean, it does say, in section 7: > All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term. If a license document contains a…

yes, but that's not what happen here. this part of the AGPL is there to avoid people adding more restrictions, but here mattermost is loosening up the restrictions. > > We promise that we will not enforce the copyleft provisions in AGPL v3.0 against you if your application ... [set of conditions]

I mean... I don't really see how they are. Technically they are but at the same time they aren't, because the set of conditions make the loosening of the AGPL a conditional thing. Which to me sounds like a violation of the AGPL because it's a further restriction: "We will (not) hold the AGPL against you... As long as you do these things..." I... Really don't think the AGPL was written to be... Abused? That way.

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

#145

Post by NewJazz »

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.

Only because they incorporate some apache code in their largely AGPL licensed project.

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

#146

Post by foxglacier »

arjie wrote: post #47
lefstathiou wrote: post #28

Someone tried to shake our company down once. They posted all this stock imagery on the web, waited for someone to use it with an ambiguously worded attribution policy, then have a third party chase you down and demand $100k but will settle for $5k. It turns out we did attribute the right way (in our terms of use) and could prove it with logs of when we added the language and when it was removed after we removed the…

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…

His cases that I could find are where the company republishing his photos didn't attribute them to him at all so it seems fair to sue (except when it turned out to be fair use). What is this attribution error you mentioned? CC BY-SA 3.0 is pretty onerous "You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made." All 3 things are required. Maybe every CC-BY photographer should be suing newspapers for stealing their work, shouldn't they?

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

#147

Post by giancarlostoro »

tazjin wrote: post #85
pixelpoet wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People go through all this trouble to host convoluted chat systems, and all this time IRC is right there. There's modern servers like Ergo and modern clients like Halloy (or for the JavaScript addicts: Convos, The Lounge, Kiwi, ...) providing all the multi-device history sharing and emoji reactions you could need. All on top of a super simple, extremely battle tested protocol.

I have hosted IRC before but im not about to explain all the nuances to my non technical friends and family. At that point I will just use XMPP.

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

#148

Post by mod50ack »

fhdkweig wrote: post #51
throwaway150 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

While I don't know if license and copyright are the same thing, the film Night of the Living Dead was famously accidentally added to the public domain due to a forgotten copyright notice.

They aren't the same thing. Under US law pre-1989, publication without notice would lead to a loss of copyright, but publication WITH a copyright notice, that is, publication of a copyrighted item, meant all rights were reserved (unless licensed).

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

#149

Post by stonogo »

leoedin wrote: post #103
ethin wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Except it's passive voice here; the conditions modify the grantor, not the reader. You may be licensed if we feel like it to use source code to create compiled versions etc.

No "you may enter now" but "you may be allowed to enter."

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

#150

Post by mappu »

ethin wrote: post #143
KolmogorovComp wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, but that's not what happen here. this part of the AGPL is there to avoid people adding more restrictions, but here mattermost is loosening up the restrictions. > > We promise that we will not enforce the copyleft provisions in AGPL v3.0 against you if your application ... [set of conditions]

I mean... I don't really see how they are. Technically they are but at the same time they aren't, because the set of conditions make the loosening of the AGPL a conditional thing. Which to me sounds like a violation of the AGPL because it's a further restriction: "We will (not) hold the AGPL against you... As long as you do these things..." I... Really don't think the AGPL was written to be... Abused? That way.

You can see the spirit of what they're going for also with the MIT binaries - that's also like saying the whole project is AGPL, but a loosening for using it as-is.

Given their goals seem to be

- Permissive use without modification, even in combined works ("MIT binaries"); but

- Copyleft with modification, including for the Affero "network hole", or commercial terms

could you suggest a clearer license option? AGPL triggers copyleft across combined works, LGPL doesn't cover the network hole, GPL has both problems. Their goals seem really reasonable, honestly, there should be a simple answer. It seems messy but I like it more than the SSPL/BSL/other neo-licenses.

Post reply on HN