4 ms·

> it would be a legal absurdity There are many countries in the world. You're making an assumption that in exactly none of them could something crazy like this

• lewiscollard 6y ago
  > There are many countries in the world. You're making an assumption that in exactly none of them could something crazy like this be enforced. Licenses should not attempt to optimise for hypothetical legal systems that may exist somewhere and do not follow the laws of logic. "Put it in, just in case" could be used to justify literally any absurdity. > and a tiny one for GS to include this language. As a sibling comment by @wegs pointed out: > [L]egal language like this is just absurdly poorly-written and stupid. Whatever you want legal language to say, you want it to be clear and unambiguous. That protects everyone involved[.] Which is to say, Goldman Sachs is entirely welcome to spam their license with absurdities. But don't expect anyone else to come along for the ride.