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.
-
-
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.
-
You might need license protection for liability. Others need the same protection for transfer. I am not going to tweet anymore to tell you a legal licensing agreement is not a crime.
-
The point is that they *don't* have any agreement with the buyer, who lawfully purchased hardware and copies of software. They can't mandate this buyer establish a contract with them to use the things they purchased used. Doing so is criminal.
- 1 more reply
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.