David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*)16h ago

@feld @giacomo

To be fair, it’s not uncommon for lawyers to be able to give a definitive answer. They will often say things like ‘the court will weigh these things and it depends on which one they consider most important’.

And this is why contracts and licenses should follow consensus and not try to set it. If two parties think they agree, the contract formalises it and helps them avoid misunderstandings and provides a framework for resolution if there are problems later. If two parties disagree, attempting to reconcile that with a contract or license is just a way of ensuring that some lawyers down the line make a load of money from both of them.

Show threadGiacomo Tesio15h ago
@[email protected]

This is both wise and utopic at once! 🙂

And a huge difference between contracts (signed by both parties) and licenses (granted from one, to many).

As for contracts, even if the parties agree on something, they sign a contract exactly because they can't trust each other future self.

And don't get me wrong, I don't use #GNU licenses on new project since I saw #GitHub #CopyALot output #QuakeIII #GPLv3 code with a wrong attribution and a #MIT like licenses. Now by default I use the Hacking License that is much simpler of a #copyleft.

Yet I still don't see much distance between what you wrote and FSF canon.

@[email protected]
Show threadhappyborg

@giacomo given it's been out for five years I'm surprised not to see explanations of the difference between the Hacking License and say AGPL.

I was looking because having read it a couple of times I don't feel it's clear, and particularly how the differences between it and the AGPL, which I currently use, affect outcomes.

I guess it's become more relevant recently and read a bit of the discussion with a lawyer on GH, but and still trying to understand.

@david_chisnall @feld

10:18pmWeb