3 ms·
>"clear up" licensing concerns This is particularly hilarious. By "re-licensing" they are actually violating the original licenses under which the content was
by jacobush 7y ago
>"clear up" licensing concerns
This is particularly hilarious. By "re-licensing" they are actually violating the original licenses under which the content was licensed to them.
When you do that, you no longer retain the right to distribute the content. (Since you just breached the license!)
What's hilarious is that, trying to "clear up" license concerns, they actually gave themselves a heap of risk. (Class-action law suit, anyone?)
- AstralStorm 7y agoThe second point depends on the existence of any termination clause or not and its exact wording. For example, violating say BSD 3-clause license advertising clause in derived work does not prevent you from distribution of the original, nor another version of said work that does not violate the license. If the previous license allowed the company itself to change it without explicit copyright reassignment, it's in the clear.
- jacobush 7y agoYour second paragraph makes sense if they went back to the original licence. They haven’t so far. All old answers (99.999%) are currently served with a misrepresentation of license terms. If they do not go back to the correct license, they have no right to continue distributing. Without the terms of the license, they have only fair use rights under copyright law. ALSO, the previous license did not allow the company to relicence.