[poisonborz]

I think views are mostly uniform around here. Matt had a few valid points but they are overall meritless. WPE would have been nice to contribute more, but they are absolutely not required to. Rug-pulling an open-source project and making defamation like this is a very dangerous example, and as we will see, also illegal. Would be interested in your arguments, I haven't read much if any in his support.

[belorn]

Does google just have that much better lawyers that they can get away with Rug-pulling products and services? I know several examples, from youtube plugins to search optimization, that had their company being pulled from existence because google decided to remove or change their free services or api's. The google graveyard sits alongside a much larger graveyard of companies who got caught when the rug was pulled.

[nolok]

It doesn't need that much better lawyer to begin with. You just can't come out an say straight up "I'm doing this specifically to screw company X", which is what Matt did, essentially.

Eg Apple is kinda screwing with Spotify and claim it's their general rules, and it's a long complicated case. But if Apple came out and said "yeah, we do this specifically because we don't like Spotify and to hurt them in particular", that case would be open and shut.

That's why it's so obvious Matt is not listening to the lawyers. Everything in this case is because he said it, putting it in writing when no one asked him to.

[belorn]

That is a much better description than practically every other take I have seen on this issue. The legal issue is not about removing access, pulling the rug, or changing policy. It is all about the intention and making public statements.

If they wanted to legally stop WPE from accessing their servers then adding a policy to the effect of limiting how much traffic a single company is allowed to do without a explicit contract would do that. Many companies has similar conditions added to their TOS at some point after an unconditional free-for-all. They might want to allow small companies to continue use their service for free, but start demanding payment from large companies who can afford to pay and who also have real impact on server and network costs. They don't explicitly write who those large companies are.

[adt]

I liked Meta's Llama license. It's very general, but we know it's for particular companies in particular regions...

Additional Commercial Terms. If, on the Meta Llama 3 version release date, the monthly active users of the products or services made available by or for Licensee, or Licensee’s affiliates, is greater than 700 million monthly active users in the preceding calendar month, you must request a license from Meta, which Meta may grant to you in its sole discretion, and you are not authorized to exercise any of the rights under this Agreement unless or until Meta otherwise expressly grants you such rights.

https://www.llama.com/llama3/license/

[JumpCrisscross]

> The legal issue is not about removing access, pulling the rug, or changing policy. It is all about the intention and making public statements

It’s absolutely about both. If Apple kicked Spotify off the App Store right after launching Apple Music, we’d have a better comparison.