4 ms·
Just because a license says something doesn't make it enforceable - though, thankfully, the GPL was found fully enforceable in this case. Something to ponder t
by gjsman-1000 5y ago
Just because a license says something doesn't make it enforceable - though, thankfully, the GPL was found fully enforceable in this case.
Something to ponder though is whether an open-source license could, potentially have unenforceable clauses on it. I think it's unlikely, but if a part of a major open-source license was found unenforceable (i.e. the definitions of networking in AGPLv3?) the open-source ecosystem would be thrown for a loop.
So much of the open-source ecosystem (and it's contributions!) rely on the licenses being valid legally. I would just say that there are some licenses (AGPLv3 in particular) that are so long and verbose there's bound to be something that could be twisted into unenforceability.
- mcguire 5y agoCertainly there could be unenforceable clauses---one Fortran compiler I ran across years ago had a clause saying it couldn't be used for "military purposes". That would be so vague I can't see it being enforced. (It also makes it not Open Source, so there's that, though.)
- adrr 5y agoCopyright licenses aren’t EULAs. You can’t tell an end user of the software how to use the copyrighted art. It only affects distribution where copyright law operates. If I don’t distribute the software, i don’t need to abide by a copyright license. It also only covers the person doing the distribution.
- foxfluff 5y agoDepends on jurisdiction. In EU some goof decided that the transient copy/copies your computer makes to run software constitutes copying, and therefore you must have a license to use software.
- GoblinSlayer 5y agoOpen source licenses restrict themselves to distribution, but it's not the only thing possible. Distribution is you getting a copy, if you don't comply with the license, you return your copy to the author.