3 ms·

Thanks for sharing this. L0 isn't interested in DRM, or surveillance, or any other invasive method of rooting out unlicensed users. That's an indirect way of

Thanks for sharing this. L0 isn't interested in DRM, or surveillance, or any other invasive method of rooting out unlicensed users. That's an indirect way of saying that L0's approach will accept a certain amount of unlicensed use. The same way that book publishers or music distributors who offer DRM-free files accept some unlicensed use of those products. L0 shares the approach of the more enlightened ebook and music stores: Make it as easy as possible to do the right thing.

patrickaljord 9y ago
> That's an indirect way of saying that L0's approach will accept a certain amount of unlicensed use. Not sure it's very wise to say this on a public forum, if any L0 user decides one day to enforce L0 in court, the people infringing on the L0 license could point to this comment by the creator of L0 that L0 "will accept a certain amount of unlicensed use". I also don't see much difference between that and a donate button.
- kemitchell 9y ago
  I really, really hate doing "well, actually" on people, especially when it involves legal background. I know that feels unfair. Courts will ask what licensors meant, and perhaps what licensees should have understood, by license terms. My comment didn't go to what the L0 licenses mean---their language is in flux, in any event---but to the practical business considerations around choosing to use their approach. BandCamp sells DRM-free music files. I'd say bands selling through them "accept a certain amount of unlicensed use", too. That's not to say they can't sue when they find someone with unlicensed copies.