| Most of this is nonsense, but I'll point out a few things: > "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. |
- IANAL.
- Get a lawyer.
- You probably know a lawyer.
Thank you for adding absolutely nothing to the conversation. The only common theme is that you think you shouldn't interpret a license yourself and act upon that.
What little substance is present in your comments is however in direct contradiction to that. You proceed to interpret a license, and tell people that violating it is fine, because the courts will probably think it's fine.
What? I just really hope anyone reading this can see through the tropes and realise you're in no position to be giving out advice.
The only advice I've given is read the licence, and to the best of your ability, act with accordance with the license. I'm 100% okay with that.
EDIT:
> 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.
> My experience is that for a volunteer project, open source, or similar, most lawyers are glad to chat.
These claims are highly dubious.
There are several lawyers in my extended family. I went to school with many more. They most certainly are not "glad to chat" about legal matters. Giving out any advice that may be construed as legal advice is a huge deal for them. You either know highly unprofessional lawyers, or you're making this up.