3 ms·

It's probably unenforceable

by tantalor 2y ago

Perz1val 2y ago
Maybe, but would you risk trying?
SiempreViernes 2y ago
When it is backed by the UAE the muscle you have to contend with is not simply legal muscle, it also includes armed muscle of questionable moral fibre (see support for the RSF).
- CityOfThrowaway 2y ago
  Do you have any examples of the UAE using its military force to force foreign companies to abide a contract?
  - notatoad 2y ago
    they're not going to send their army after you, but that's not what this means. friendly middle-eastern countries negotiate all kinds of concessions from western governments in exchange for allowing military operations to stage in their country, and "we want you to enforce our IP laws" is an easy one for western governments to grant.
davedx 2y ago
How is changing a software licence unenforceable?
- tantalor 2y ago
  scolson said it best: You can retroactively make a license more open, but you cannot retroactively make it more closed. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10672751 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10672751
  - selimthegrim 2y ago
    Didn’t Oracle try with OpenSolaris?
  - CuriousCosmic 2y ago
    And even then you aren't retroactively making it more open. You are just now offering an additional, more open license as well as the existing one. You haven't taken the original license away, you just provided a better default option. The same weirdly enough goes in reverse as well. You can provide a more restrictive license retroactively even if the rights holders don't consent as long as the existing license is compatible with the new, more restrictive license. i.e. you can promote a work from Apache-2.0 to GPL-3.0-or-later as the former is fully compatible with the latter. However you can't stop existing users from using it as Apache-2.0, you can only stop offering it yourself with that license (but anyone who has an existing Apache-2.0 copy or who is an original rights holder can freely distribute it).

3 ms·

It's probably unenforceable

by tantalor 2y ago

It's probably unenforceable

Perz1val 2y ago
Maybe, but would you risk trying?
SiempreViernes 2y ago
When it is backed by the UAE the muscle you have to contend with is not simply legal muscle, it also includes armed muscle of questionable moral fibre (see support for the RSF).
- CityOfThrowaway 2y ago
  Do you have any examples of the UAE using its military force to force foreign companies to abide a contract?
  - notatoad 2y ago
    they're not going to send their army after you, but that's not what this means. friendly middle-eastern countries negotiate all kinds of concessions from western governments in exchange for allowing military operations to stage in their country, and "we want you to enforce our IP laws" is an easy one for western governments to grant.
davedx 2y ago
How is changing a software licence unenforceable?
- tantalor 2y ago
  scolson said it best: You can retroactively make a license more open, but you cannot retroactively make it more closed. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10672751 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10672751
  - selimthegrim 2y ago
    Didn’t Oracle try with OpenSolaris?
  - CuriousCosmic 2y ago
    And even then you aren't retroactively making it more open. You are just now offering an additional, more open license as well as the existing one. You haven't taken the original license away, you just provided a better default option. The same weirdly enough goes in reverse as well. You can provide a more restrictive license retroactively even if the rights holders don't consent as long as the existing license is compatible with the new, more restrictive license. i.e. you can promote a work from Apache-2.0 to GPL-3.0-or-later as the former is fully compatible with the latter. However you can't stop existing users from using it as Apache-2.0, you can only stop offering it yourself with that license (but anyone who has an existing Apache-2.0 copy or who is an original rights holder can freely distribute it).