4 ms·
In that case, who would pay the new "owner" for the now unlicensed parts provided by outside contributors? I see this having only two outcomes: either nothing
by dragandj 7y ago
In that case, who would pay the new "owner" for the now unlicensed parts provided by outside contributors?
I see this having only two outcomes: either nothing happens (it stays BSD), or it becomes nuclear waste, and new owner cannot sell it because it is plagued by mutually incompatible legal status of different portions of the code.
I can't see how the third version, where it stays clean, but the new owner can milk it, is possible.
- lolc 7y agoWell if it becomes toxic waste they could force everybody currently using it into licensing it from them. They could even try and go for damages for previous use.
- dragandj 7y agoBut my point it that these customers would not be protected by that license, since they'd be using the code of other contributors without license, so they'd still be potentially open for extortion by hundreds other entities (I suppose there were many contributors).
- lolc 7y agoHmm yes interesting. Thanks for pointing that out! The other patch authors could retroactively agree with the robber that their derived publications have been without license. Then they too could block usage of Nginx by pledging to go after anybody who gets a license from the robber.