5 ms·
What is the worst-case scenario for an entity that refuses to comply?
by castis 11y ago
What is the worst-case scenario for an entity that refuses to comply?
- Kiro 11y agoProbably not much and that's why I don't put any licenses on my stuff.
- Tyr42 11y agoRefusing to put a licence on your code does stop people from using it. If you really don't care, just slap a MIT license on it and be done with it, no one will bother you afterwards.
- umanwizard 11y agoSo, you release code but don't let anyone use it? Because that's the legal effect of not putting licenses on your stuff.
- Kiro 11y agoYep and I use code without license all the time. Show me one case where that has ever caused a problem.
- oldmanjay 11y agoThe point isn't that it may cause you a problem. The point is that the license is the structure by which people understand how they can use things, and the lack of a license is generally taken as "don't touch this" by the larger community. It's essentially opting out of the larger pool of contribution, which is of course totally valid and your right.
- umanwizard 11y agoIt's not just how the community interprets it; it's the law.
- cyphar 11y agoUntil somebody sues you for copyright infringement (because you broke the law), nothing bad will happen. Yet.
- Kiro 11y agoWe both know that will never happen. I'm just being realistic here.
- cyphar 11y agoIt depends on whose copyright you infringed upon. If it's a company, you can bet your ass they'll sue you if they find out. If it was an individual, then probably nothing will happen. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't use a free software license for your software. Many people will refuse to use it, because they cannot be sure they are legally allowed to do so.
- Kiro 11y agoIf it's a company which cares about copyright I'm sure they will put a license on it. The scenario we're talking about is where people put up code without bothering putting a license on it. I have a hard time seeing anyone would be sued for using that since the author clearly don't care.
- dragonwriter 11y agoA license is permission to use rights reserved under copyright. Someone who cares about copyright but doesn't intend to give any permissions will not provide a license.
- Kiro 11y agoAlright, alright. I'll tell my wife I'm going to jail.
- cyphar 11y agoThat's not how the Berne Convention works. Copyright is applied automatically. You can't just assume people who publish works without a license "don't care". Maybe they don't want to give you a license and want to retain all of their rights under copyright law. I always put licenses on all of my works (including presentations, blog posts, images, as well as code obviously). All of them are licenses which make it clear that I wish to provide people more freedom than granted by default under copyright law (in counties that follow the Berne Convention).
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- godzillabrennus 11y agoI'm not a lawyer but I'd expect that if they lose in court they stand to be liable for damages that will far exceed compliance costs. It's in their best interest to just work toward compliance now.
- bryanlarsen 11y agoWorst case scenario is that a court issues an injunction halting distribution of the infringing product. This has happened in the past: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11217620 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11217620