Jump to content

Mod licensing and "etiquette"


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, paul23 said:

No microsoft *sold* word.

No, sir. Microsoft LICENSED you Word. From the very same document you provided:

Quote

Articles 4(2) and 5(1) of Directive 2009/24 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of the resale of a user licence entailing the resale of a copy of a computer program downloaded from the copyright holder’s website, that licence having originally been granted by that rightholder to the first acquirer for an unlimited period in return for payment of a fee intended to enable the rightholder to obtain a remuneration corresponding to the economic value of that copy of his work, the second acquirer of the licence, as well as any subsequent acquirer of it, will be able to rely on the exhaustion of the distribution right under Article 4(2) of that directive, and hence be regarded as lawful acquirers of a copy of a computer program within the meaning of Article 5(1) of that directive and benefit from the right of reproduction provided for in that provision.

I urge you to seek professional advice on the matter. If you are underage, I strongly advice you to talk with your parents and pay a local lawyer about the matter. I don't know about your country, but on mine there are places where young Lawyers give legal counseling for free to get experience (how we tell "estágio" on English?).

Serious, dude. You are right on not trusting a random guy from the Internet - but this doesn't means that a random guy from the Internet could not be smarter than you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an update, I raised issues with affected projects and after some Github-staff discussion, determined MIT and GPLv3 licenses are non-issues (those are really the only issue license combinations we have).  You'd have to link to a "non-GPL compliant license" like Apache to get in hot water.

Here's a licensing guide:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html

Try to include only "green" licensed projects if you are licensed under GPL-v3, basically.

Thank you to Kopernicus, and all for taking my issue reports seriously.

Edited by R-T-B
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, paul23 said:

Sigh and again the court ruled that such laws do not uphold. A 'license' is the same as 'selling' it: if you read that this is the exact wording oracle used, and exactly refuted by the judge.

Dude, BUT GOD'S SAKE. The court ruled that the LICENSE can be transferred!! 

It's not a property in the sense you have with your toys.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.... Do we have to resort to "yes" "no", "yes" "no"? I've fought this battle too many times to start shouting in a public forum. Companies tend to ignore the ruling, and many people are just too afraid and do not know their rights.

 

If anyone tells me I need to stop doing what I do, they'll have to ask me to go to court. And I'll happily defend myself, I haven't taken the time to read up anything there is to read just to argue needlessly in topic on the internet.

 

Also I appreciate if you do not involve my personal situation in this matter: my parents have long past the age where they can be helpful.

Edited by paul23
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's above my understanding how a Company that makes a living on licensing products doesn't have a program that could be used to explain what's copyrights, what's a license and why this matter.

Software are licensed to end users, even the "perpetual licenses" are licenses on Germany. And it's not unanimous that software licenses are a sales contract - ie., are not passible of being terminated. On the time frame I had for the research, this is what I got:

A “sales contract”, in turn, cannot be terminated. Says I. There are colleagues (such as Till Jaeger who knows much more about all things license than I and whom I hereby challenge to submit his dissenting opinion) who argue that sales contracts can be “contracts for the performance of a continuing obligation” in software licensing scenarios, thus making them terminable.

Source: http://germanitlaw.com/termination-of-a-perpetual-software-license-under-german-law/ (the author of the text thinks that Licenses are sales contracts, by way).

But, in all aspects, SOFTWARE ARE STILL LICENSED AND ARE NOT YOUR PROPERTY. And it's dangerous to think otherwise.

TL;DR : You can loan your property for third parties. You can rent your property for your friends. You try these stunts with Software, you can risk jail time on Germany.

Edited by Lisias
TLDR
Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has moved rather far from the original topic of discussion and has devolved to the point of requiring moderator intervention several times.

This topic is now closed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...