4 ms·
Open source license regimes are of dubious value unless there's visible case law backing it up. It's great that Niccolo Caranti made the effort to defend the Cr
by hodgesrm 10y ago
Open source license regimes are of dubious value unless there's visible case law backing it up. It's great that Niccolo Caranti made the effort to defend the Creative Commons license--this is a lot of effort regardless of whether you recover legal costs.
(Personally I'll make double sure to attribute images from Wikipedia from here on out.)
- icebraining 10y agoOpen source license regimes are of dubious value unless there's visible case law backing it up. The logic is backwards, though - if the license isn't valid, the default in the law is to deny the use of the work.
- dietrichepp 10y agoThere are some cases where infringement was recognized but damages were $0 because that was the amount the creator would have earned for a licensed use. Unless I'm remembering incorrectly.
- tamana 10y agoCitation needed, that's patently absurd. Unless the damages were $0 PLUS following the terms of the license (adding a statement of credit for BSD, offering a download of the modified source for GPL etc) In general, the remedy for violating a license is to follow through on the license agreement.
- hodgesrm 10y agoAssuming the denial is actually enforced, which it normally is not. And generally speaking the only enforcement mechanism is for somebody with standing to bring a lawsuit. GPL V2 licenses are violated on a constant basis in my personal experience. (I used to run a business that competed in the MySQL market.) It is relatively difficult to detect inclusion of GPL code in shipped binaries, for example, especially if the audience of users is not large or the binaries are part of a larger system.