3 ms·
"We could make a copyright license which only condition is that you can not sue someone, or that you can only sue companies and not people, or some other from o
by s73v3r 12y ago
"We could make a copyright license which only condition is that you can not sue someone, or that you can only sue companies and not people, or some other from of harm reduction."
Every company in the world will get around this.
"We could make a copyright license which only condition is that you can not sue someone"
So what would you do in the case of a copyright violation? If you can't sue to enforce the license, what's to stop anyone from violating it? And that includes the GPL and its provision on opening the source of things using it.
" They argue that you must have the malicious aspects, or its not free enough to be useful."
There needs to be some way of enforcing the contract. And that's how contracts are usually enforced: In the court system.
- belorn 12y agoThe author is never bound by the license, and it would basically become a eye-for-a-eye license. If you sue, you get sued. It would of course not provide the benefits of GPL which has requirements on distributors to provide source code. It would be a completely different license, and if I made it, likely based on MIT just so it would be the least company friendly permissive license ever. I only bring it up as an example of a license requirement whose intent would align with many who uses GPL in order to prevent copyright abuse. Contrubutions would be quite messy however.