Timeline for Trying to understand an old custom license
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 12, 2022 at 7:40 | comment | added | Martin_in_AUT | @jpa Most cases so far have been by the copyright holder against the licensee. The 'dangerous' situation comes from settings where the end user files charges against the manufacturer for release of the source. Looking at Section 10 of GPL3, for example, the end user is a direct licensee of the software (not a sub-licensee) and therefore has rights on his own to enforce the license. Not decided yet, but will be interesting to watch: SFConservancy v.Vizio | |
| Jan 11, 2022 at 11:26 | comment | added | jpa | @Martin_in_AUT Even there the companies that did release source code did so voluntarily to avoid other punishments. E.g. Westinghouse did not or could not, and got: "Westinghouse’s infringement to be willful and therefore awarded treble statutory damages of $90,000. The court also entered a permanent injunction prohibiting distribution of HDTV products with the BusyBox software and further ordered all infringing HDTVs to be forfeited to the plaintiff". If you have any case where court has actually forced publishing of proprietary code, I would be interested. | |
| Jan 11, 2022 at 9:09 | comment | added | Martin_in_AUT | @jpa I would not take this lightly. GPL is enforceable in many countries and source code had to be disclosed. Some examples can be found at the following links: wiki.fsfe.org/Migrated/GPL%20Enforcement%20Cases , sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance , gpl-violations.org , just to name a few. | |
| Jan 11, 2022 at 7:23 | comment | added | jpa | Even with GPL code, there is nothing that could "force to publish proprietary code". You would however be required to stop distributing the code and possibly pay damages. That is why many companies find it more desirable to comply with the license. With unlicensed code such as this, you don't have that option. | |
| Jan 10, 2022 at 16:42 | comment | added | Martin_in_AUT | As a company I would not just be 'a little leery' about this. As mentioned above I would veto its use, and this would be a roadblock for the product release. The second paragraph of my answer is intended for those who do not have that strict policies and procedures in place. | |
| Jan 10, 2022 at 15:27 | comment | added | apsillers♦ | I overall like and agree with this answer but as a company I'd be a little leery of the ambiguous scope of the copyleft-ish requirement in #2 (i.e., in various situations, to what degree does adjacent code constitute a change or enhancement?). But then, I'd already be going in with a blanket skepticism about a crayon license, so perhaps that specific concern doesn't matter so much. | |
| Jan 10, 2022 at 13:43 | history | answered | Martin_in_AUT | CC BY-SA 4.0 |