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.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @adamcaudill
This is less of a (natural) disaster and more of a crime by the manufacturer.
2 replies 0 retweets 24 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker @adamcaudill
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @RichFelker @adamcaudill
Their IP, their terms. This is what licenses are for. You’re using one to protect your IP, remember?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rahmivolkan @adamcaudill
Um, somehow I think you never read the MIT license.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Moreover, *NO* FOSS license, regardless of which one, claims the ability to take away rights that you would inherently have by lawfully obtaining a copy of the work. They only grant rights which you would otherwise not have due to defaults of copyright law.
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.