[thrwwyh]

They get around this by limiting the amount of payment to the drivers' costs (i.e. the IRS standard mileage rate of $0.54/mile.)

From the TOS:

"...we may charge you to reimburse the Carpool Driver for the costs associated with a Carpool Ride provided to you. [...] Reimbursements may include per mile charges at up to the prevailing IRS standard mileage rate, and other expenses like tolls and parking fees." (Emphasis mine)

[eli]

That's an interesting legal theory, but I wouldn't want to be the test case.

[prawn]

If they wanted/needed to pay a higher amount, could Lyft get around this by paying the driver two fees - a first constrained one to skirt the insurance rules and then a "separate" fee for another component such as advertising or data provision or something else plausible but arbitrary?

[geofft]

A 1992 email from Richard Stallman about libreadline's license is, oddly enough, relevant here:

"The issue first arose when NeXT proposed to distribute a modified GCC in two parts and let the user link them. Jobs asked me whether this was lawful. It seemed to me at the time that it was, following reasoning like what you are using; but since the result was very undesirable for free software, I said I would have to ask the lawyer.

"What the lawyer said surprised me; he said that judges would consider such schemes to be 'subterfuges' and would be very harsh toward them. He said a judge would ask whether it is 'really' one program, rather than how it is labeled.

"So I went back to Jobs and said we believed his plan was not allowed by the GPL."

Judges are not computers, and are generally capable of seeing through your clever plans.

[vkou]

If it walks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck, a court is very likely to call it a duck.