|
|
|
|
|
|
by IANAD
3569 days ago
|
|
|
What about the following text in README: 'If you are building from source then you get no support and must work within the restrictions specified of the
fair source licence (see LICENSE.txt for details). To purchase support see
https://searchcode.com/product/#downloadlinks' And what about: 'Use of this software is governed by the Fair Source License included in the LICENSE.TXT file' No period there at the end, but that seems to indicate to use the LICENSE.TXT. And then, even worse: 'In order to deal with the case of my death or this software becoming abandoned it has a time-bomb where the licence will change exactly 3 years after the publish date of a version release. This means that if version 1.0.0 was released on 1 July 2010 then it can be taken using the listed alternate licence on 2 July 2013. This licence, version and time is all specified below.' There is no definition of what 'software becoming abandoned' (Which 'software'? What does 'abandoned' mean?). There is no definition of what 'it can be taken' means. The example date is one day more than three years and the dates given as examples could confuse the date intended for expiry. There is no definition of what should be used as the 'publish date of a version release'. While these things may seem common sense to a developer, they should have a clear legal interpretation. |
|
|
In US, those only exist from precedent. Which means after going to court and getting a ruling, often several times as different courts will rule differently. Eventually being normalized by supreme court.
The US legal system is not well-speced or deterministic for new concepts.