[gavinhoward]

> Because the UK court of appeals thinks it's okay, in effect, if individuals located in other countries are forced to undertake millions of dollars in costs going to a full trial over a claim that they were violating the copyright of the file format of an MIT licensed piece of software, initiated by a person who (fraudulently, in this case) claims to be the initial author of the software.

Not that it would protect me against a fraud like Wright, but your story is the exact reason I have a lawyer working on licenses that would explicitly disclaim any legal duty that can be disclaimed.

[nullc]

The MIT license waver is extraordinarily broad, actually superior in my view to some modern licenses. From my experience now I can now see ways that it could be improved but it could be worse.

The issue with an outright fraud (or other sufficiently malicious actor) is that they can just tell sufficient lies to undermine most protections-- especially when their goal is to simply to defeat summary judgement and count on you being bankrupt before a trial could be completed.