4 ms·
"Justin Webb granted the licence, " Except it's used under license from naturalmotion, and naturalmotion owns the code (hence the copyright naturalmotion). Ye
by DannyBee 11y ago
"Justin Webb granted the licence, "
Except it's used under license from naturalmotion, and naturalmotion owns the code (hence the copyright naturalmotion).
Yet, naturalmotion explicitly grants no rights.
I can state affirmatively this makes no sense :)
As I said, either they've granted rights (through justin), in which case that statement that they grant no rights should not be there (because they are in fact, granting rights)
Or they haven't granted rights (through justin), in which case it's not open source and who knows what rights you are getting here.
- throwupper247 11y agoThey grant rights to justin but not, at least not directly or actively, to the recipient. But, the syntax is really awful and wouldn't pass any compiler if this was a programm. IMHO courts should rule in favour of the doubt for any misuse, say for uncomercial FOSS stuff. I know you mean that on the business side of things, caution of overarching decisions is advised. What the copyright stuff means to me is that I'm not allowed to relicense, but i could modify or distribute unmodified.