Fun licensing disaster from a past life: company pays more than $500k for a used system; starts integrating it. Then through a call to the manufacturer’s support, it comes out that the software licenses aren’t transferable. License cost: $1M. Hardware without license: useless.
-
-
I really hope some day that protection of rights for licensed goods makes it into law; the current system of letting companies abuse customers however they want is good for profits, but ridiculously bad for buyers.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I don’t see how that is so. Customer pays less due to the restriction. With that logic, it is more of a crime to release musl with restrictions of its manufacturer’s choice.
-
Um, what?
-
Their IP, their terms. This is what licenses are for. You’re using one to protect your IP, remember?
-
Um, somehow I think you never read the MIT license.
-
That’s the point - you use MIT license for your terms. Why is it a crime for someone else to use another? Who draws the line?
-
Again, I think you've never read it (or any FOSS license, or any theory on the subject) if you think it "sets terms".
-
Here is one from MIT: You can’t hold developer liable. Here is one from the manufacturer’s: you can’t transfer the license.
-
That's not a license condition; you don't have to agree to it (or anything) to use the software. It's a disclaimer of warranty/liability, placed alongside, and serves as legal protection to the authors regardless of whether a user "accepts" it. Seriously go learn something.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.