3 ms·

I believe this comment neatly goes at the heart of this discussion. I have absolutely no horse in this particular fight, having never even used any software by

I believe this comment neatly goes at the heart of this discussion. I have absolutely no horse in this particular fight, having never even used any software by confluence, as far as I know. Coming into this discussion as somewhat of a blank slate, I stumbled over this somewhat nebulous concept of “ownership” just like the parent, plus some mild dismay at seeing the only two threats meaningfully engaging with what IMHO is the core of this dispute being flagged into oblivion. To reiterate: I have no earthly idea nor opinion if Confluence is the confluence of everything that’s wrong with earth and beyond. I just think the argument would benefit from a sharp pencil more than a pitchfork, for now.

wtallis 8y ago
> I stumbled over this somewhat nebulous concept of “ownership” just like the parent, A lack of clarity about what sort of transaction or license terms give rise to ownership of a copy of software is not justification for entirely rejecting the notion of ownership of a copy. The existence of that ownership status is rigidly established by statute, as are some of the consequences. It's only the prerequisites that are nebulous or at least very complicated, but that doesn't make ownership status any less important of a question. In legal disputes, the tricky questions are usually more important than the ones with obvious answers.