3 ms·
> a basic reading of the AGPL text readily and clearly confirms this fact. But that reading has never been tested in court, so from counsel’s perspective why r
by objclxt 6y ago
> a basic reading of the AGPL text readily and clearly confirms this fact.
But that reading has never been tested in court, so from counsel’s perspective why risk it?
No competent lawyer would take the AGPL at prima facie, they’re going to look for case law - and there isn’t any.
- ddevault 6y agoWhy risk anything? On the grand scale of things, effectively nothing has been tested in court. This is no grounds for making baseless statements about a license which are unsupported by its text.
- yodon 6y agoCase law, also known as judicial decisions made in courtrooms by individual non-technical judges that then become legal precedent followed by all other judges, is a huge thing. If you look back to the founding of the EFF Electronic Frontier Foundation, it's genesis was the realization that an enormous amount of technology-privacy-critical legal precedent was being set in remote courtrooms where poorly equipped attorneys on both sides were arguing in front of uninformed judges who would then set precedent for the entire country. Most areas of law have enormous amounts of case law precedent. Privacy (originally) and the AGPL (today) are areas where the lack of any prior case law makes the legal risks (as in legal uncertainties) somewhere between much higher and effectively infinite. That isn't the case with most other areas where case law precedent results in far more conventionally bounded risks/uncertainties.
- tptacek 6y agoThe statements you're responding to were, taking the commenter at their word, informed by lawyers, while yours, taking you at your word, were not. We need to revisit the definition of the word "baseless".