41–50 of 162 posts
Mattermost should be aware of the contra proferentem ('interpretation against the draftsman') doctrine of contractual interpretation. Ambiguity works against the party who provided the wording.
Sometimes a license is confusing to a layman but consists of standard, established legal jargon. Don't touch the code until you know what it means from a source that knows what they are talking about. Don't take internet guesses or opinions as fact.
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.
I dug around for ~10 minutes and it's probably not an exaggeration to say that Mattermost might have the most confusing licensing of any software product in existence. From the license page on their repo ( https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/blob/master/LICENSE... ): > 1. You are licensed to use compiled versions of the Mattermost platform produced by Mattermost, Inc. under an MIT LICENSE So just the compiled ve…
> 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 further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying
So, my interpretation is that I am free to license it under the AGPL; there is no "well, we might decide to do that", and I can strip all conditions they place upon me and comply only with the AGPL, and legally there is nothing they can do about it.
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…
MIT licensed binary in a source code repo does not make any sense.
This is a huge red flag.
The license seems perfectly clear in that it's multiply-licensed under AGPL, MIT, and corporate licensing based on different use cases. Maybe this guy has reading comprehension issues, but more likely he's just unhappy with the corporate part and wants to stir drama.
Hopefully I'm not violating copyright by taking this small chunk of their LICENSE.txt, but this appears to be the language that some want clarified: https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/blob/master/LICENSE... ---- You are licensed to use compiled versions of the Mattermost platform produced by Mattermost, Inc. under an MIT LICENSE - See MIT-COMPILED-LICENSE.md included in compiled versions for details You may be…
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…
His stuff is so widespread that the consensus on Wikimedia Commons was to keep his photos and add a warning so that no one ends up accidentally using it. Some accused him of sock-puppetry to get his content into a place.
Today, intellectual property maximalism is a much more mainstream position so perhaps modern Internet users will think that he is in the right, but I think it's a bit much.
Here's the thread where he's discussed: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27...
Here's an example forced-attribution photo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flaming_Lips.jpg
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…
> at this time we are not entertaining any changes as such. Always wonder what leads people to write like this. What does "as such" add to the sentence? At least "at this time" is temporally conditional to the future, it has purpose. Entertaining is posh "thinking about" or "interested in" so had the merit of being one word in place of two but so is "considering" Are we not entertained?
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…
