3 ms·

> You license is non-standard and does not appear to permit self hosting. You were just given carte blanche to host it, by the author in public. If that isn't

by fao_ 5y ago

> You license is non-standard and does not appear to permit self hosting. You were just given carte blanche to host it, by the author in public. If that isn't a legal exception, I really, really do not know what is. Also, if you do self-host it, who is going to find out and sue you? Software licenses are not magical. The hammer of god is only going to come down on you if the person: a) sees you do it b) has the power to stop you And if they're outside of the GNU project or the Linux foundation, they very likely do not! And regardless, that only matters if: c) you have the money to pay for the damages Which unless you're rich (I dunno, maybe you are rich), you probably don't!

em-bee 5y ago
that's quite irrelevant. not everyone has the time and energy to deal with legal uncertainty or a lawsuit. even if they can't take any money from you, the stress could have a major effect on your life. so no thanks. and if you run a business, it's automatically a no-go. however, what really matters for FOSS is that suggesting the license does not matter only reduces the strength of FOSS licenses. you are effectually suggesting that licenses can be ignored. note that i am not suggesting that the author of the product should change their license, or clarify it with regards to self-hosting, just that your advice to ignore the actual license is dangerous.
- fao_ 5y ago
  In this specific instance, the author gave a written exemption to literally everyone, in public -- specifically to allow them to self-host and modify it. So the license does not apply with this exemption in place, and that would be arguable in a court of law. Now with my point in general, > however, what really matters for FOSS is that suggesting the license does not matter only reduces the strength of FOSS licenses. you are effectually suggesting that licenses can be ignored. Right, but if they are ignored by large companies, there's no chance in hell that we're ever going to find out about it. The fact of the matter is that big companies really do not have to give a shit, at this point, because even if someone challenges them, it's unlikely that any one person is going to have the financing to win the war of attrition that will follow. Likewise, if you take someone's code and it's not open source, and you don't actually distribute it, but instead just host it, and you're small enough, then the license itself does not matter. The claim that pointing out that the rules only matter as far as the rules can be enforced, actually damages the rules, is utterly absurd. The people who will want to ignore the rules and do whatever, and bank on not getting caught are already doing that.
  - em-bee 5y ago
    In this specific instance, the author gave a written exemption to literally everyone, in public -- specifically to allow them to self-host and modify it that may be the case, but that makes it a custum exemption that is not vetted by lawyers. for my personal use that my be ok, but for my company it is not, no matter how small my company is, i just can't take the risk. not only the risk getting sued, which indeed may be minimal, if non-existant, but also the risk that any of my current or worse future business partners, investors or clients have less trust in an unvetted license than me. and from a client perspective, i do not want to deal with a business that doesn't take licensing seriously. the difference between a big company ignoring licenses and me is, that a big business can afford to deal with getting caught, but if i am wrong, i am ruined.

by fao_ 5y ago

em-bee 5y ago

that's quite irrelevant. not everyone has the time and energy to deal with legal uncertainty or a lawsuit. even if they can't take any money from you, the stress could have a major effect on your life. so no thanks. and if you run a business, it's automatically a no-go. however, what really matters for FOSS is that suggesting the license does not matter only reduces the strength of FOSS licenses. you are effectually suggesting that licenses can be ignored. note that i am not suggesting that the author of the product should change their license, or clarify it with regards to self-hosting, just that your advice to ignore the actual license is dangerous.

fao_ 5y ago
In this specific instance, the author gave a written exemption to literally everyone, in public -- specifically to allow them to self-host and modify it. So the license does not apply with this exemption in place, and that would be arguable in a court of law. Now with my point in general, > however, what really matters for FOSS is that suggesting the license does not matter only reduces the strength of FOSS licenses. you are effectually suggesting that licenses can be ignored. Right, but if they are ignored by large companies, there's no chance in hell that we're ever going to find out about it. The fact of the matter is that big companies really do not have to give a shit, at this point, because even if someone challenges them, it's unlikely that any one person is going to have the financing to win the war of attrition that will follow. Likewise, if you take someone's code and it's not open source, and you don't actually distribute it, but instead just host it, and you're small enough, then the license itself does not matter. The claim that pointing out that the rules only matter as far as the rules can be enforced, actually damages the rules, is utterly absurd. The people who will want to ignore the rules and do whatever, and bank on not getting caught are already doing that.
- em-bee 5y ago
  In this specific instance, the author gave a written exemption to literally everyone, in public -- specifically to allow them to self-host and modify it that may be the case, but that makes it a custum exemption that is not vetted by lawyers. for my personal use that my be ok, but for my company it is not, no matter how small my company is, i just can't take the risk. not only the risk getting sued, which indeed may be minimal, if non-existant, but also the risk that any of my current or worse future business partners, investors or clients have less trust in an unvetted license than me. and from a client perspective, i do not want to deal with a business that doesn't take licensing seriously. the difference between a big company ignoring licenses and me is, that a big business can afford to deal with getting caught, but if i am wrong, i am ruined.