6 ms·

In this case, though, it's likely the creators would be more than receptive to giving you a legitimate CC-BY license if you ask. They're likely just not familia

by btown 8y ago

In this case, though, it's likely the creators would be more than receptive to giving you a legitimate CC-BY license if you ask. They're likely just not familiar with the CC-BY details. Rather than shaming their work for it, let's enjoy it with the understanding that there are humans in the loop with the flexibility to offer bespoke licensing, and licensing will be sorted out if it needs to be.

Palomides 8y ago
my comment was mostly intended for HN readers, who may also be likely to release small projects of their own in the future; I strongly feel anyone making works subject to copyright needs a basic understanding of licensing. Reading up on this stuff only takes a few hours, and a work released under a standard license makes things nice for both the creator and the user.
ghaff 8y ago
People are either not going to care because they don’t really care what license, open source or otherwise, it’s under. Or they’ll simply drop it like a hot potato because it’s got a weird license. To a first or second degree no one will contact them to see if it’s ok for some specific application.
fermienrico 8y ago
This is not excusable when you're putting out the work and claiming it to be free to use and later some chap uses it, they get sued because the wording was vague. There is some level of professionalism and ethics that is required to avoid nasty situations. Criticism of their wording, lack of license and the need for adopting existing licenses (don't roll your own license if possible) is valid. "Rather than shaming their work for it,.." - No one is shaming their work. We are talking about the licensing terms. I love the font concept and I think its brilliant.
- mcbits 8y ago
  The creators are obviously not interested in suing some chap for using the font unless he claims it's his own font. And even then, the poorly worded license would make suing harder, not easier. People should be able to share their work under common-sense terms without being sucked into Kafka's swirling cesspool of legalese and bureaucracy. The demonic inhabitants of that dimension can just... choose not to use it.
  - TuringTest 8y ago
    Regardless, any legal department worth its salt will avoid touching this wording of a license with a ten foot pole. Which means that only hobbyist will use it. It would be great if businesses worked on common sense and honor, but that's not the world we're living in.
    - mcbits 8y ago
      The legal department can give advice, but they can't stop the company from using it anyway. So just ask the legal department: Realistically, how likely are we to be sued if we use this font according to the most obvious interpretation of the license as written? (Free to use, but don't take credit for it.) Listen to the answer, and then apply common sense.
      - gamblor956 8y ago
        It's policy at most companies to terminate employees who act against the express advice of legal department on legal matters (especially where a low-value asset like a font can trigger high-risk legal exposure). In many companies, that would even be considered a for-cause termination, meaning no severance. So think about it this way: is it worth risking your career over a silly font? Because common sense in this situation is to just do what Legal says.
        mcbits 8y ago
        So don't use it. Just be clear that it's a self-imposed limitation based on irrational fantasies and there is little to no actual risk. Back on Earth, the font's creators clearly gave permission to use it under one simple condition that would be hard to violate. There's more risk of being sued for using GPL software because it's easier to violate. If the font's creators do turn out to be loonies and start filing frivolous lawsuits, that's an ever-present (small) risk regardless of the license.
        netsharc 8y ago

by btown 8y ago

Palomides 8y ago

my comment was mostly intended for HN readers, who may also be likely to release small projects of their own in the future; I strongly feel anyone making works subject to copyright needs a basic understanding of licensing. Reading up on this stuff only takes a few hours, and a work released under a standard license makes things nice for both the creator and the user.

ghaff 8y ago

People are either not going to care because they don’t really care what license, open source or otherwise, it’s under. Or they’ll simply drop it like a hot potato because it’s got a weird license. To a first or second degree no one will contact them to see if it’s ok for some specific application.

fermienrico 8y ago

This is not excusable when you're putting out the work and claiming it to be free to use and later some chap uses it, they get sued because the wording was vague. There is some level of professionalism and ethics that is required to avoid nasty situations. Criticism of their wording, lack of license and the need for adopting existing licenses (don't roll your own license if possible) is valid. "Rather than shaming their work for it,.." - No one is shaming their work. We are talking about the licensing terms. I love the font concept and I think its brilliant.

mcbits 8y ago
The creators are obviously not interested in suing some chap for using the font unless he claims it's his own font. And even then, the poorly worded license would make suing harder, not easier. People should be able to share their work under common-sense terms without being sucked into Kafka's swirling cesspool of legalese and bureaucracy. The demonic inhabitants of that dimension can just... choose not to use it.
- TuringTest 8y ago
  Regardless, any legal department worth its salt will avoid touching this wording of a license with a ten foot pole. Which means that only hobbyist will use it. It would be great if businesses worked on common sense and honor, but that's not the world we're living in.
  - mcbits 8y ago
    The legal department can give advice, but they can't stop the company from using it anyway. So just ask the legal department: Realistically, how likely are we to be sued if we use this font according to the most obvious interpretation of the license as written? (Free to use, but don't take credit for it.) Listen to the answer, and then apply common sense.
    - gamblor956 8y ago
      It's policy at most companies to terminate employees who act against the express advice of legal department on legal matters (especially where a low-value asset like a font can trigger high-risk legal exposure). In many companies, that would even be considered a for-cause termination, meaning no severance. So think about it this way: is it worth risking your career over a silly font? Because common sense in this situation is to just do what Legal says.
      - mcbits 8y ago
        So don't use it. Just be clear that it's a self-imposed limitation based on irrational fantasies and there is little to no actual risk. Back on Earth, the font's creators clearly gave permission to use it under one simple condition that would be hard to violate. There's more risk of being sued for using GPL software because it's easier to violate. If the font's creators do turn out to be loonies and start filing frivolous lawsuits, that's an ever-present (small) risk regardless of the license.
        netsharc 8y ago