7 ms·

First, revoke the license. That means they are no longer permitted to redistribute the code. If they then continue to redistribute it, they are committing a co

by Jolter 4y ago

First, revoke the license. That means they are no longer permitted to redistribute the code. If they then continue to redistribute it, they are committing a copyright violation. That’s when there is cause for a lawsuit.

ticviking 4y ago
More than that, they've been given notice, and are willfully distributing it. There's all kinds of specific legal teeth for that behavior.
- Jolter 4y ago
  It wouldn’t really be a (useful) revocation of the license if they were not legally notified.
bayesian_horse 4y ago
They aren't redistributing it at all, only using it.
- Jolter 4y ago
  I’m pretty sure when the license is revoked, that includes the license for using it as well. The article doesn’t seem to state if they are redistributing it or not, but I’ll take your word for it. Without being a user of the infringing product, I’m not able to tell whose premises the server they SSH’d into is on.
  - pabs3 4y ago
    IIRC the AGPL says you don't need a license to use the code, but you do to modify the code, which then triggers the network interaction requirements.
- pabs3 4y ago
  The AGPL network interaction provisions trigger on modification, not redistribution, so you can violate it without redistribution.
  - bayesian_horse 4y ago
    Yes, which is the point of AGPL.
kgeist 4y ago
>First, revoke the license. That means they are no longer permitted to redistribute the code. I wonder how it works. What is the act of revoking an open source license exactly? I assume they simply sent a letter and wrote a blog post? Pretty sure in my country it would have no legal force. Is it different in the US?
- Jolter 4y ago
  If it were in my country, you’d send them a notification by registered mail. Then you’d get a receipt that they received it.
pabs3 4y ago
As soon as they are in violation of the license, they no longer have permission to redistribute the code, because the license is the only thing that allows that and it only allows that if they are in compliance with the license. So there is cause for a lawsuit immediately, not after any other action.
- Jolter 4y ago
  They could, but clearly according to the article, they are not doing that. They are first revoking the license and notifying the affected party. I assume the lawsuit will be filed as soon as they have evidence that the notification is served yet the violation is continuing.

by Jolter 4y ago

ticviking 4y ago

More than that, they've been given notice, and are willfully distributing it. There's all kinds of specific legal teeth for that behavior.

Jolter 4y ago
It wouldn’t really be a (useful) revocation of the license if they were not legally notified.

bayesian_horse 4y ago

They aren't redistributing it at all, only using it.

Jolter 4y ago
I’m pretty sure when the license is revoked, that includes the license for using it as well. The article doesn’t seem to state if they are redistributing it or not, but I’ll take your word for it. Without being a user of the infringing product, I’m not able to tell whose premises the server they SSH’d into is on.
- pabs3 4y ago
  IIRC the AGPL says you don't need a license to use the code, but you do to modify the code, which then triggers the network interaction requirements.
pabs3 4y ago
The AGPL network interaction provisions trigger on modification, not redistribution, so you can violate it without redistribution.
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  Yes, which is the point of AGPL.

kgeist 4y ago

>First, revoke the license. That means they are no longer permitted to redistribute the code. I wonder how it works. What is the act of revoking an open source license exactly? I assume they simply sent a letter and wrote a blog post? Pretty sure in my country it would have no legal force. Is it different in the US?

Jolter 4y ago
If it were in my country, you’d send them a notification by registered mail. Then you’d get a receipt that they received it.

pabs3 4y ago

As soon as they are in violation of the license, they no longer have permission to redistribute the code, because the license is the only thing that allows that and it only allows that if they are in compliance with the license. So there is cause for a lawsuit immediately, not after any other action.

Jolter 4y ago
They could, but clearly according to the article, they are not doing that. They are first revoking the license and notifying the affected party. I assume the lawsuit will be filed as soon as they have evidence that the notification is served yet the violation is continuing.