3 ms·

Let's say I work at Giphy and we publish a library with the Defensive license. Then the library is used by the folks at Twitter. Okay, Twitter isn't competing w

Let's say I work at Giphy and we publish a library with the Defensive license. Then the library is used by the folks at Twitter. Okay, Twitter isn't competing with us and they send lots of traffic our way, our team is cool with that. Then Giphy is acquired by Facebook. Is Twitter in trouble?

scj 6y ago
Alternative, but similar scenario: Let's say a database gets licensed under the defensive license by $CORPORATION_0. And let's say that $CORPORATION_1 makes many contributions to that database under the same defensive license (where they retain copyright). A little weird, but presumably both companies are comfortable with the situation. Let's then say that $MEGA_EVIL_DB_CORP buys out the contributor $CORPORATION_1, and now $MEGA_EVIL_DB_CORP owns the copyright and has competing databases. I'd assume both companies can no longer use the defensive licensed DB. Meaning all Oracle has to do to destroy the competition is buy whichever company is cheaper. That seems like a bad attack vector.
- wmf 6y ago
  IANAL but it seems like a non-compete license would need copyright assignment so it's clear who you can't compete with. The dual-licensing bait-and-switch business model also requires copyright assignment so it's not that different.
kemitchell 6y ago
This is specific enough that I don't think I can say "not legal advice", address as posed, and truly expect that nobody will jump to some conclusion without consulting a lawyer. You'd really want to have a legal conversation about this kind of scenario, with full freedom to talk confidential details, in order to reach the right practical conclusion. What I can say is that the Defensive license comes from folks who deal with M&A, noncompetes, and resulting complexities all the time. 1.0.0 has a number of provisions addressed to potential operational and structural changes that could affect scope: https://polyformproject.org/licenses/defensive-licenses/1.0.0/#new-productcs https://polyformproject.org/licenses/defensive-licenses/1.0.... https://polyformproject.org/licenses/defensive-licenses/1.0.0/#discontinued-products https://polyformproject.org/licenses/defensive-licenses/1.0.... https://polyformproject.org/licenses/defensive-licenses/1.0.0/#sales-of-business https://polyformproject.org/licenses/defensive-licenses/1.0.... My own personal view is that the 1.0.0 terms will be perfectly well recommendable for a great many companies and use cases starting today. But also, emphatically, that any set of terms can be improved, especially in how they interact with external sources of complexity, like the corporate laws. I hope we'll see 1.0.1s and 1.3.0s and 2.0.0s and beyond for all the PolyForm licenses. If anyone is or has the gas to contribute to those conversations, please reach out: https://polyformproject.org/contribute/ https://polyformproject.org/contribute/

scj 6y ago

Alternative, but similar scenario: Let's say a database gets licensed under the defensive license by $CORPORATION_0. And let's say that $CORPORATION_1 makes many contributions to that database under the same defensive license (where they retain copyright). A little weird, but presumably both companies are comfortable with the situation. Let's then say that $MEGA_EVIL_DB_CORP buys out the contributor $CORPORATION_1, and now $MEGA_EVIL_DB_CORP owns the copyright and has competing databases. I'd assume both companies can no longer use the defensive licensed DB. Meaning all Oracle has to do to destroy the competition is buy whichever company is cheaper. That seems like a bad attack vector.

wmf 6y ago
IANAL but it seems like a non-compete license would need copyright assignment so it's clear who you can't compete with. The dual-licensing bait-and-switch business model also requires copyright assignment so it's not that different.

kemitchell 6y ago

This is specific enough that I don't think I can say "not legal advice", address as posed, and truly expect that nobody will jump to some conclusion without consulting a lawyer. You'd really want to have a legal conversation about this kind of scenario, with full freedom to talk confidential details, in order to reach the right practical conclusion. What I can say is that the Defensive license comes from folks who deal with M&A, noncompetes, and resulting complexities all the time. 1.0.0 has a number of provisions addressed to potential operational and structural changes that could affect scope: https://polyformproject.org/licenses/defensive-licenses/1.0.0/#new-productcs https://polyformproject.org/licenses/defensive-licenses/1.0.... https://polyformproject.org/licenses/defensive-licenses/1.0.0/#discontinued-products https://polyformproject.org/licenses/defensive-licenses/1.0.... https://polyformproject.org/licenses/defensive-licenses/1.0.0/#sales-of-business https://polyformproject.org/licenses/defensive-licenses/1.0.... My own personal view is that the 1.0.0 terms will be perfectly well recommendable for a great many companies and use cases starting today. But also, emphatically, that any set of terms can be improved, especially in how they interact with external sources of complexity, like the corporate laws. I hope we'll see 1.0.1s and 1.3.0s and 2.0.0s and beyond for all the PolyForm licenses. If anyone is or has the gas to contribute to those conversations, please reach out: https://polyformproject.org/contribute/ https://polyformproject.org/contribute/