5 ms·

I mean, IANAL but there seems to be a trivial loophole here: have the company lawyer read the license, lawyer determines there’s a trapdoor, and conveys the con

I mean, IANAL but there seems to be a trivial loophole here: have the company lawyer read the license, lawyer determines there’s a trapdoor, and conveys the contents to someone else. Nobody but the lawyer has to read it; everyone but the lawyer can use the software. The license specifically refers to people and not organizations...

CobrastanJorji 6y ago
I suspect you're right, but I also suspect that the company lawyer would immediately strongly advise you not to please not rely on the license and just purchase a standard license from the original author.
est31 6y ago
Kinda reminds me of https://youtu.be/JSTpRCscfKI?t=187 https://youtu.be/JSTpRCscfKI?t=187
- minot 6y ago
  > This video contains content from Sony Pictures Movies & Shows, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.
quietbritishjim 6y ago
I think the general idea would work, but not for employees of the same organisation because they're both operating for the same legal entity (the same "licensee" in the language of the license).
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  It won't because the person reading it may be reading the contract but they don't have full agency for the company to enter a contract/license agreement for the company. It would never hold up in court.
badrabbit 6y ago
Debatable. The lawyer is working for his clients therefore his reading of the file binds the company to its conditions.
- natcombs 6y ago
  Alternative: Publish a blog about the spite license, and then anyone who reads the blog knows the contents, but has not read the license itself!
  - beckingz 6y ago
    License-rolling?
- zimpenfish 6y ago
  Surely only if the lawyer agrees to it? Otherwise this would mean just reading contracts to check them out for validity would end up being binding - which is a bit much.
kazinator 6y ago
And of course the "randos" on the Internet do not have lawyers. Many of them do read licenses and are screwed.

CobrastanJorji 6y ago

I suspect you're right, but I also suspect that the company lawyer would immediately strongly advise you not to please not rely on the license and just purchase a standard license from the original author.

est31 6y ago

Kinda reminds me of https://youtu.be/JSTpRCscfKI?t=187 https://youtu.be/JSTpRCscfKI?t=187

minot 6y ago
> This video contains content from Sony Pictures Movies & Shows, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.

quietbritishjim 6y ago

I think the general idea would work, but not for employees of the same organisation because they're both operating for the same legal entity (the same "licensee" in the language of the license).

stjohnswarts 6y ago
It won't because the person reading it may be reading the contract but they don't have full agency for the company to enter a contract/license agreement for the company. It would never hold up in court.

badrabbit 6y ago

Debatable. The lawyer is working for his clients therefore his reading of the file binds the company to its conditions.

natcombs 6y ago
Alternative: Publish a blog about the spite license, and then anyone who reads the blog knows the contents, but has not read the license itself!
- beckingz 6y ago
  License-rolling?
zimpenfish 6y ago
Surely only if the lawyer agrees to it? Otherwise this would mean just reading contracts to check them out for validity would end up being binding - which is a bit much.

kazinator 6y ago

And of course the "randos" on the Internet do not have lawyers. Many of them do read licenses and are screwed.