3 ms·

> from what I can tell, they basically got away with it? Or they correctly interpreted the law? Few of us care to admit how this "legal consensus" is mostly B

> from what I can tell, they basically got away with it? Or they correctly interpreted the law? Few of us care to admit how this "legal consensus" is mostly BS. Lots of evidence to the contrary, but, like politics these days, it sure is an appealing fantasy?

saghm 2y ago
I don't pretend to have any legal expertise on the matter. All I know is that I remember reading stuff that made me think there was a consensus that this wasn't allowed by the licenses, and that they did it and I didn't notice any consequences. Maybe it was BS, but I think it's also fair to argue that there's quite a lot of licensing terms in software that haven't been fully established via precedent in the courts yet and instead mostly ends up being followed out of risk aversion rather than anyone being totally 100% sure how a court would rule (which isn't something people can necessarily predict on _any_ given issue, rather than something specific to software licenses). If the common consensus was BS, I actually don't think that detracts from the larger point I was trying to make much; I probably distracted from it too much with my over-enthusiastic wordplay at the end, but my original intent was to convey that Canonical might just intentionally have decided that they aren't concerned with the types of licensing issues that people are discussing here with regards to coreutils. If my theory is correct, it's due to sound legal judgment or intentional non-compliance isn't something I have any strong insight into; I mostly just thought it was worth suggesting that what people here think about it might not really matter all that much because it seems unlikely to me that they'll either be convinced to change their plans or suffer significant negative consequences from going forward with what they've decided, regardless of whether it's right or wrong.

saghm 2y ago

I don't pretend to have any legal expertise on the matter. All I know is that I remember reading stuff that made me think there was a consensus that this wasn't allowed by the licenses, and that they did it and I didn't notice any consequences. Maybe it was BS, but I think it's also fair to argue that there's quite a lot of licensing terms in software that haven't been fully established via precedent in the courts yet and instead mostly ends up being followed out of risk aversion rather than anyone being totally 100% sure how a court would rule (which isn't something people can necessarily predict on _any_ given issue, rather than something specific to software licenses). If the common consensus was BS, I actually don't think that detracts from the larger point I was trying to make much; I probably distracted from it too much with my over-enthusiastic wordplay at the end, but my original intent was to convey that Canonical might just intentionally have decided that they aren't concerned with the types of licensing issues that people are discussing here with regards to coreutils. If my theory is correct, it's due to sound legal judgment or intentional non-compliance isn't something I have any strong insight into; I mostly just thought it was worth suggesting that what people here think about it might not really matter all that much because it seems unlikely to me that they'll either be convinced to change their plans or suffer significant negative consequences from going forward with what they've decided, regardless of whether it's right or wrong.