5 ms·

Maybe you can show me the actual mistake, because no commit was apparently referenced in either the post I replied to or the parent post.

by yebyen 8y ago

jakear 8y ago
The parent of this [1] commit was referenced in a thread linked in this repo's readme. I said this in a different thread, but I'll repeat here: I don't believe the community should be trying to find legal "gotchas" such as this one in order to get around reasonable limitations set in place by a team, else teams will begin to stop using as permissive licenses as they do. This is a matter of ethics for me, as the legal nature of committing to an MIT licensed project is not up for debate. You of course don't need to share the same ethical framework as me. [1] https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/commit/f1d0c1d88417f85ec66fa5629beca64ef71ac8b8#diff-3261b6aa3ae37f4f5a9faa60fb4a6845 https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/commit/f1d0c1d88417f85ec...
- yebyen 8y ago
  If you had linked that comment in your first reply, I would have agreed with you and we probably wouldn't have had any of this to talk about :) A license granted by accident without consideration in return is not a "no takebacks!" situation. If I paid for that license and then you said, it was granted by mistake, I may have a legal leg to stand on in terms of "no takebacks" claims. But if it's just a URL, I'm pretty sure I actually don't need any license or your permission to copy it. (If you wanted the data that the URL serves up to be protected, then you should have implemented some kind of actual protection scheme, like a token auth system that restricts access to authorized users only, instead of serving that content up to anyone who knows where it is located on the public internet.) I don't think that's what they've actually tried to do here, so the issue is really moot. Thanks for clearing up what you meant for me, and have an upvote.
  - jakear 8y ago
    My bad. I follow VSCode closely and incorrectly assumed everyone had gone through the same BFS of the the repository as me. And yes I don’t mind the URL being public as much as the means by which the legal justification was achineved. Reverse engineering is, in some jurisdictions, totally legal, and it wouldn’t be hard at all to simply look at the requests being made by the application. That I’d be fine with. This sort of underhand “got you!” Is what bothers me.

Maybe you can show me the actual mistake, because no commit was apparently referenced in either the post I replied to or the parent post.

by yebyen 8y ago

Maybe you can show me the actual mistake, because no commit was apparently referenced in either the post I replied to or the parent post.

jakear 8y ago

The parent of this [1] commit was referenced in a thread linked in this repo's readme. I said this in a different thread, but I'll repeat here: I don't believe the community should be trying to find legal "gotchas" such as this one in order to get around reasonable limitations set in place by a team, else teams will begin to stop using as permissive licenses as they do. This is a matter of ethics for me, as the legal nature of committing to an MIT licensed project is not up for debate. You of course don't need to share the same ethical framework as me. [1] https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/commit/f1d0c1d88417f85ec66fa5629beca64ef71ac8b8#diff-3261b6aa3ae37f4f5a9faa60fb4a6845 https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/commit/f1d0c1d88417f85ec...

yebyen 8y ago
If you had linked that comment in your first reply, I would have agreed with you and we probably wouldn't have had any of this to talk about :) A license granted by accident without consideration in return is not a "no takebacks!" situation. If I paid for that license and then you said, it was granted by mistake, I may have a legal leg to stand on in terms of "no takebacks" claims. But if it's just a URL, I'm pretty sure I actually don't need any license or your permission to copy it. (If you wanted the data that the URL serves up to be protected, then you should have implemented some kind of actual protection scheme, like a token auth system that restricts access to authorized users only, instead of serving that content up to anyone who knows where it is located on the public internet.) I don't think that's what they've actually tried to do here, so the issue is really moot. Thanks for clearing up what you meant for me, and have an upvote.
- jakear 8y ago
  My bad. I follow VSCode closely and incorrectly assumed everyone had gone through the same BFS of the the repository as me. And yes I don’t mind the URL being public as much as the means by which the legal justification was achineved. Reverse engineering is, in some jurisdictions, totally legal, and it wouldn’t be hard at all to simply look at the requests being made by the application. That I’d be fine with. This sort of underhand “got you!” Is what bothers me.