| On the topic of software engineers exhibiting poor comprehension... > IANAL, but you're obviously not one either. That ought to have been clear from the first two sentences of my comment. > I can't imagine any court will care about 4b being on a per-file versus per-repo basis. You can imagine all you like. I'll leave that to the courts themselves. Suggesting people (even with a superfluous IANAL disclaimer) make legal decisions based on what you imagine courts will do is just poor advice; legal or otherwise. > 2) Damages [...] I haven't mentioned damages because it's not relevant. If you think the concept is new to me, you're quite welcome to peruse my recent HN comments. Infringement and damages are unrelated concepts. Will someone have to pay substantial damages for infringing in the way described? Probably not, but that doesn't change the fact infringement took place. It also is going to vary wildly depending on the circumstances involved. Some jurisdictions have minimum damages that are owed simply if an infringement takes places, irrespective of any other details of the infringements. It's just outright poor advice to suggest people make legal decisions based on what they can imagine. There's also a very big difference between what I'm suggesting and what you're suggesting. You're telling people to go ahead and do something. I'm telling them not to do something. Perhaps I'm being overly conservative, but you're quite right, unless you're sitting down with a lawyer (which let's face most open source projects are not) then don't make assumptions. Just follow the license precisely to the best of your ability, until you've got specific legal advice (and insurance) to protect you if something goes wrong. EDIT: This really shouldn't be relevant. Because honestly it shouldn't add any credibility to my statements. No I don't sit down with lawyers every time I make decision that has legal implications - that's impossible. However, I do have first hand experience dealing with copyright/licensing lawyers specifically over IP infringement due to a third-party violating the license of software I wrote. No, it wasn't just a discussion. Lawyers took action, and infringement stopped taking place - it did not reach the courts. Again, that shouldn't add any credibility to my claims. I have zero credibility here, as does mostly everyone else. Just read the damn license. |
> "Infringement and damages are unrelated concepts"
No. They're the same concept. Infringement is okay if there are no damages. That's how a lawyer reads a contract. You're merely confusing types of damages. There are many ways to calculate damages. You're describing statutory damages. You usually run the calculation all ways, and take the greatest number which applies (but not always). That's how you might get into hundreds of thousands of dollars of damages for an MP3 collection.
> "unless you're sitting down with a lawyer (which let's face most open source projects are not)"
No, this isn't right. Most major free software projects do have access to lawyers. I've worked on several, and what I did was always reviewed by in-house counsel (and not just one organization). Even if there isn't a corporate sponsor, that's what a lot of the free software / open source not-for-profits do. I've had conversations with volunteer counsels too. Most minor projects generally won't need a sit-down session with a lawyer, but if they want access for whatever reason, it's not rocket science either:
1) Look into your social network. I have 3 or 4 lawyers who went to the same college I did. When I have a legal question, I do call them up. For something as simply as the nonsense you're spouting, any lawyer can set you straight.
2) If you are doing work at a company above a hundred people, it will have an in-house counsel. Shoot them a quick email. Most are friendly; that's what they're there for.
3) If you're not (1) or (2), you probably have someone like me in your network.
4) And if all else fails, you can go to the right meetup.
My experience is that for a volunteer project, open source, or similar, most lawyers are glad to chat.
> "Just read the damn license"
This is just about the worst advice on HN. Your options:
1) Read the license with a lawyer
2) Read the license as well as articles from actual lawyers about the license
3) Learn enough about law to read the license correctly.
You're misreading the licenses, and that's what's dangerous. It's kind of like referring people to WebMD over a doctor.