Debian and the PHP license(lwn.net)
lwn.net
Debian and the PHP license
http://lwn.net/Articles/604630/
10 comments
I don't think that is really accurate. I think it is closer to:
- Ford makes car, licenses under Ford license.
- 3rd parties make add on products for the Ford automobile, like an updated radio, and say that it is licensed under the same license as the original car.
- Ford makes car, licenses under Ford license.
- 3rd parties make add on products for the Ford automobile, like an updated radio, and say that it is licensed under the same license as the original car.
In retrospect you are probably correct, or at least make a valid point, and it might have made the problem itself even clearer if I hypothetically slapped a license specifically naming the "Ford Focus by Ford" on something non-automotive, like Kelloggs Corn Flakes or a random Xbox video game.
However, that would violate the sanctity of the "automobile analogy", so for better or worse I stay within the automobile mfgr community. A sacrifice of technical excellence for style.
However, that would violate the sanctity of the "automobile analogy", so for better or worse I stay within the automobile mfgr community. A sacrifice of technical excellence for style.
It's not just a Ford license, it's a Ford Focus license. It's specific to the car, that's why the addon maker shouldn't use it for its radio.
True, and I am not trying to say the extension authors are correctly using the license. I just thought that the OP's analogy would be more fitting if someone like ruby decided to use the PHP license.
That is simultaneously the worst and the clearest car analogy I've ever seen.
My own small contribution to a Debian Licensing Hassle:
http://lwn.net/1998/0611/ircii.html
I cold-called one of those guys and he was kind of amused by the whole thing. It was not much fun though.
http://lwn.net/1998/0611/ircii.html
I cold-called one of those guys and he was kind of amused by the whole thing. It was not much fun though.
Another conversation along the similar vein of "Debian putting its foot down about a license" is Firefox (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation_software_re...)
Mozilla doesn't permit 3rd parties to make unapproved changes to their software and continue using their trademarks. It's in their trademark policy. Debian has a similar policy with respect to their trademarks. So, Debian created funnily named alternatives based on the code. All that made sense. What didn't make sense was all the people whining about Mozilla's policies and unironically complaining about how it restricted the Debian devs.
the part about Debian policy being the same is false. see msg 364 of the Debian bug.
im on mobile now ...
im on mobile now ...
The odd thing with that is that the problem became apparent, people discussed it, Mozilla didn't want to (or couldn't for some, presumably legal, reason) change policy, neither did Debian, sometime suggested the name change thing, both parties agreed that this was compatible with their policies, and so it happened. There was no drama between Firefox and Debian: just a problem, a discussion, and a solution.
The way some people presented it as a pitched battle between the Firefox and Debian teams is silly. Both were protecting their standing in some way, both appreciated the other's position, and a solution was found that causes no problems for either of them (aside from a small amount of user training along the lines of "yeah, it is Firefox under a different name").
The way some people presented it as a pitched battle between the Firefox and Debian teams is silly. Both were protecting their standing in some way, both appreciated the other's position, and a solution was found that causes no problems for either of them (aside from a small amount of user training along the lines of "yeah, it is Firefox under a different name").
It's good that Google learned from this problem, and built a solution into their naming when releasing Chrome; the open source project is named Chromium, and is what distro versions can be named, and the official build from Google is named Chrome.
It would be nice if Mozilla would follow suit, and come up with an official name for the open source project and community builds which is distinct from their official branded builds. Right now Debian uses "IceWeasel", GNU uses "IceCat", and other distros would have to come up with their own name if they made changes that were incompatible with Mozilla's trademark policy.
On the other hand, in pretty much every repository, you find "Chromium", but if you instead download straight from Google you get "Chrome".
It would be nice if Mozilla would follow suit, and come up with an official name for the open source project and community builds which is distinct from their official branded builds. Right now Debian uses "IceWeasel", GNU uses "IceCat", and other distros would have to come up with their own name if they made changes that were incompatible with Mozilla's trademark policy.
On the other hand, in pretty much every repository, you find "Chromium", but if you instead download straight from Google you get "Chrome".
Yeah, but IceCat is not the same as IceWeasel (it has different patches), so it makes sense for them to have different names.
Mozilla lets you use Firefox if you don't change the source; I believe Fedora and other distros release it with the original name. The difference is that, unlike Debian, they don't apply patches to the upstream source in their builds.
And I find it hard to believe that Google allows you to use the Chromium mark if you release a patched build; they're probably no different than Mozilla in that regard.
Mozilla lets you use Firefox if you don't change the source; I believe Fedora and other distros release it with the original name. The difference is that, unlike Debian, they don't apply patches to the upstream source in their builds.
And I find it hard to believe that Google allows you to use the Chromium mark if you release a patched build; they're probably no different than Mozilla in that regard.
Chromium in debian is extensively patched. It disables third party cookies, for example.
That said, I couldn't find a real trademark policy page for Chromium. If it's the generic Google one: http://www.google.com/permissions/trademark/our-trademarks.h... then Debian is clearly in violation of it.
That said, I couldn't find a real trademark policy page for Chromium. If it's the generic Google one: http://www.google.com/permissions/trademark/our-trademarks.h... then Debian is clearly in violation of it.
Debian does apply patches -- just look at their packaging repository:
http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-chromium/pkg-chromium.git...
Google also documents that Chromium may have distro-specific patches applied and how it differs from the Google Chrome binaries provided by Google:
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/LinuxChromiumPackage...
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/ChromiumBrowserVsGoo...
http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-chromium/pkg-chromium.git...
Google also documents that Chromium may have distro-specific patches applied and how it differs from the Google Chrome binaries provided by Google:
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/LinuxChromiumPackage...
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/ChromiumBrowserVsGoo...
an official name for the open source project and community builds
They already did, it's called "Firefox". The ones that chose another name did so because they're making a different browser.
Google needed a different name because Chrome isn't open source at all.
They already did, it's called "Firefox". The ones that chose another name did so because they're making a different browser.
Google needed a different name because Chrome isn't open source at all.
Chromium and Chrome differ in a number of ways beyond the name and trademark, though.
Iceweasel is literally just Firefox packaged for Debian, except with a different name and icon. I don't think there is any functional difference (beyond the normal distro-specific packaging that every distro does).
Chromium lacks a number of features that Chrome has, because Chrome comes bundled with a bunch of proprietary components that will never be distributed with Chromium.
A basic example is that Chromium cannot (without a patch) display PDFs in-browser, the way Chrome can. Chromium also cannot support Chromecast, or any of the many other Chrome-specific features, of which there are many[0]
[0] https://i.imgur.com/AIxYzl9.jpg (screenshot is from Firefox, but it illustrates how much Google focuses on Chrome-specific functionality.)
Iceweasel is literally just Firefox packaged for Debian, except with a different name and icon. I don't think there is any functional difference (beyond the normal distro-specific packaging that every distro does).
Chromium lacks a number of features that Chrome has, because Chrome comes bundled with a bunch of proprietary components that will never be distributed with Chromium.
A basic example is that Chromium cannot (without a patch) display PDFs in-browser, the way Chrome can. Chromium also cannot support Chromecast, or any of the many other Chrome-specific features, of which there are many[0]
[0] https://i.imgur.com/AIxYzl9.jpg (screenshot is from Firefox, but it illustrates how much Google focuses on Chrome-specific functionality.)
Iceweasel is literally just Firefox packaged for Debian,
except with a different name and icon.
It looks like there has been some effort to do what I've described, come up with a generic default name for Firefox builds that can be used as a default, unbranded version[2] rather than requiring every distro that doesn't want to or can't comply with Mozilla's trademark policy have to do it on their own, but the effort appears to have stalled.
Chromium lacks a number of features that Chrome has,
because Chrome comes bundled with a bunch of proprietary
components that will never be distributed with Chromium.
[1]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=354622 [2]: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=682414
[deleted]
It's somewhat trivial, but I remember one change that precipitated Mozilla's complaint was a patch that stopped GIF animation when hitting the escape key. This was years ago though, so I don't know offhand what functionality Debian currently maintains that isn't in mainline Firefox.
Just to add to this, Google recently open sourced the PDF rendering engine in Chrome [1], so I imagine that it'll be included in Chromium soon.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7781878
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7781878
I'm glad Debian is putting their foot down on this issue. There are way too many careless and sometimes downright bad licenses floating around.
I've seen, and argued against, people using the WTFPL before: http://www.wtfpl.net/about/
Some, even in projects that could be considered "serious" and reused in another project (I won't touch a WTFPL licenses project because to me, it's not a license and is way to legally ambiguous).
I've seen way to many developers think they can write up some text and call it a license and it's "good". Not the case.
Pick a real license that was written by lawyers and has well understood (and preferably previously challenged) legal ramifications.
I've seen, and argued against, people using the WTFPL before: http://www.wtfpl.net/about/
Some, even in projects that could be considered "serious" and reused in another project (I won't touch a WTFPL licenses project because to me, it's not a license and is way to legally ambiguous).
I've seen way to many developers think they can write up some text and call it a license and it's "good". Not the case.
Pick a real license that was written by lawyers and has well understood (and preferably previously challenged) legal ramifications.
I don't see how "You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO" is ambiguous, legally or otherwise.
That said, this would probably be better served with an explicit public-domain declaration or equivalent (like the CC0 license).
That said, this would probably be better served with an explicit public-domain declaration or equivalent (like the CC0 license).
It's ambiguous for several reasons.
There's not much preventing me from re-assinging copyright to myself (in countries that allow it) and then suing the original creator.
There's nothing to stop me from taking your code, re-licensing it under say a proprietary license, then suing the original creator.
There's nothing that stops me from taking your project's branding/symbol/graphics/name and claiming it as my own and then suing you.
There's nothing that stops me from taking your work and then not providing attribution back to the original creator.
By default there is nothing that absolves the license holder from warranty nor implied fitness for use. (If it destroys my computer running your code, I can sue you, and worse, you accept liability by default). That is, unless you include the optional snippet of text that absolves any warranty issues... but since it's optional, and not on the main license page (it's in the FAQ page), many authors forget to include this.
There are other things too... like, legally, what does "DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT" actually mean? The law is black and white (or at least we try to be), being in the grey opens the door for abuse. Has it been challenged before in a legal sense? Has a lawyer reviewed it?
While I certainly understand the intent and spirit of this license; this license appears to be nothing more than a bad (and somewhat distasteful) joke that serves more harm than good.
I agree, better off choosing a public domain license or one of the several vetted FOSS licensees.
There's not much preventing me from re-assinging copyright to myself (in countries that allow it) and then suing the original creator.
There's nothing to stop me from taking your code, re-licensing it under say a proprietary license, then suing the original creator.
There's nothing that stops me from taking your project's branding/symbol/graphics/name and claiming it as my own and then suing you.
There's nothing that stops me from taking your work and then not providing attribution back to the original creator.
By default there is nothing that absolves the license holder from warranty nor implied fitness for use. (If it destroys my computer running your code, I can sue you, and worse, you accept liability by default). That is, unless you include the optional snippet of text that absolves any warranty issues... but since it's optional, and not on the main license page (it's in the FAQ page), many authors forget to include this.
There are other things too... like, legally, what does "DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT" actually mean? The law is black and white (or at least we try to be), being in the grey opens the door for abuse. Has it been challenged before in a legal sense? Has a lawyer reviewed it?
While I certainly understand the intent and spirit of this license; this license appears to be nothing more than a bad (and somewhat distasteful) joke that serves more harm than good.
I agree, better off choosing a public domain license or one of the several vetted FOSS licensees.
We discussed this before[1] but you failed to back up any claims about this re-licensing and re-assigning business you vent about here. You still haven't explained how you can take away someone else's rights. Copyright licenses are used to grant other people rights, not to take them away. You still haven't read the Berne convention, have you? Can you point at a case in any country that suggests the license could be interpreted outside the context of copyright? I.e. that "do what the fuck you want" in a copyright license can be seen as granting someone rights beyond the ones (related to copying, modification, performance, etc.) that are normally exclusive to the author and therefore require him to use a license to grant others these same rights?
If you can't back anything up, I don't think you should be spreading your own interpretations in this manner, presenting them as truth. We already have far too many people confused over licenses, and passing that confusion on doesn't help anyone.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8043969
If you can't back anything up, I don't think you should be spreading your own interpretations in this manner, presenting them as truth. We already have far too many people confused over licenses, and passing that confusion on doesn't help anyone.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8043969
Perhaps I missed something...
But I don't see where you substantiate any of your claims.
You seem to just want to defend an obviously joke license.
This license, from my interpretations, forfeits most of the copyright protections, including allowing someone to re-license (per the FAQ of the license).
At the end of the day, you are free to use whatever license you think suits you best.
That does not mean it actually suits you best. (As demonstrated by Debian putting their foot down on other BS licenses such as this).
But I don't see where you substantiate any of your claims.
You seem to just want to defend an obviously joke license.
This license, from my interpretations, forfeits most of the copyright protections, including allowing someone to re-license (per the FAQ of the license).
At the end of the day, you are free to use whatever license you think suits you best.
That does not mean it actually suits you best. (As demonstrated by Debian putting their foot down on other BS licenses such as this).
Re-licensing remains a horribly confusing term, which is something I complained about. Some people use it to mean substitute the license on your copy with some other license, and then pass copies on under that new license. This appears to be the way the FAQ uses the term. The way you use the term, you seem to think that you can actually do some magic and revoke the author's rights, then impose your conditions on him, and possibly sue him for violating these conditions. That's just bullshit, it doesn't work like that. Unless you know something the rest of the world doesn't.
You keep saying copyright licenses are used to "forfeit" (by which I assume you mean surrender) rights, so as to (exclusively) transfer them from you to someone else. It doesn't work like that. They are used to grant other people rights. They normally do not remove any rights from the author.
And you still maintain your circular definition of copyright, in which authorhood or copyright itself is a right protected by copyright and that through one of the rights protected by copyright (and granted to you by an author's license), you can obtain that right which is copyright (or authorhood). Can you please back any of it up?
You keep saying copyright licenses are used to "forfeit" (by which I assume you mean surrender) rights, so as to (exclusively) transfer them from you to someone else. It doesn't work like that. They are used to grant other people rights. They normally do not remove any rights from the author.
And you still maintain your circular definition of copyright, in which authorhood or copyright itself is a right protected by copyright and that through one of the rights protected by copyright (and granted to you by an author's license), you can obtain that right which is copyright (or authorhood). Can you please back any of it up?
Even if your argument regarding copyright is valid (I don't believe all of it is valid), this still does nothing to address the other (numerous) issues I've raised with this particular license.
Like I said before -- use a more appropriate license that still provides the goals you intend.
As a side note -- don't accuse me of not backing up my claims when neither do you... at this point, we're just two guys bickering on a forum.
Like I said before -- use a more appropriate license that still provides the goals you intend.
As a side note -- don't accuse me of not backing up my claims when neither do you... at this point, we're just two guys bickering on a forum.
WTFPL might have its issues and I might agree that it is not a good license; I can also say the GPLs are bad licenses, since they have their problems too.
But let's not go about making unfounded claims as to what you are allowed to do with it.
> don't accuse me of not backing up my claims when neither do you... at this point, we're just two guys bickering on a forum
Since a lot of your claims assume an exclusive transfer of rights (the method of which is not stated in the berne convention), I have already linked to and cited a US Copyright circular to back up my claim that transfer doesn't happen the way you assume it does. I can also cite the same circular and the Berne Convention to find what rights of authors are protected. Your circular understanding of copyrigts and the rights it reserves for the author assumes rights which appear in neither of the two documents (but the text is online, so prove me wrong). I've also pointed out the illogicalness of your definition.
Even so, the onus is on you to back up the claims you made. You started the discussion by making these claims.
But let me cite one more passage. You probably can't tell where it is from since you haven't read the text. Go do so already.
Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work [..]
So unless you're making an argument about Somalia (in which case you can forget copyright altogether), please drop the bullshit about claiming others' things as your own and then suing the real author. I mean sure, you can try... just as you can try to take the car of someone who released his software under WTFPL. "Because the license said I can!" won't hold up.
But let's not go about making unfounded claims as to what you are allowed to do with it.
> don't accuse me of not backing up my claims when neither do you... at this point, we're just two guys bickering on a forum
Since a lot of your claims assume an exclusive transfer of rights (the method of which is not stated in the berne convention), I have already linked to and cited a US Copyright circular to back up my claim that transfer doesn't happen the way you assume it does. I can also cite the same circular and the Berne Convention to find what rights of authors are protected. Your circular understanding of copyrigts and the rights it reserves for the author assumes rights which appear in neither of the two documents (but the text is online, so prove me wrong). I've also pointed out the illogicalness of your definition.
Even so, the onus is on you to back up the claims you made. You started the discussion by making these claims.
But let me cite one more passage. You probably can't tell where it is from since you haven't read the text. Go do so already.
Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work [..]
So unless you're making an argument about Somalia (in which case you can forget copyright altogether), please drop the bullshit about claiming others' things as your own and then suing the real author. I mean sure, you can try... just as you can try to take the car of someone who released his software under WTFPL. "Because the license said I can!" won't hold up.
So... what's your point? You have discussed copyright to death -- but failed to address a single other point Alupis brought up regarding the WTFPL. Others (below) have even commented that several of the complaints are very valid. Nor have you actually sited any sources other than putting some text in italics.
Sub-licensing is different from transferring copyright ownership. They are both clear and well understood things, what do you mean by re-licence?
> There's not much preventing me from re-assinging copyright to myself (in countries that allow it) and then suing the original creator.
In what jurisdictions would that be interpreted as copyright reassignment? I can see how you might argue that "re-assign copyright to myself" is WTF you want to do, but the onus is on the creator to assign copyright to you.
> There's nothing to stop me from taking your code, re-licensing it under say a proprietary license, then suing the original creator.
Suing them for what? There's nothing to prevent you from suing pretty much anyone, for any reason, including any of the other licenses. Second of all, if you're saying there's nothing preventing your suit from being successful, I still don't understand on what grounds. It doesn't matter what licence you've relicensed under if the original author holds copyright.
> There's nothing that stops me from taking your project's branding/symbol/graphics/name and claiming it as my own and then suing you.
You could do this no matter what the license. What about the WTFPL would make your lawsuit any more successful than any other licence?
> There's nothing that stops me from taking your work and then not providing attribution back to the original creator.
This is fully within the intent of the WTFPL.
> By default there is nothing that absolves the license holder from warranty nor implied fitness for use.
You have a good point that this is something many people would want. Do you know in which jurisdictions this is actually needed? I wasn't able to find any sources for this.
> Has it been challenged before in a legal sense? Has a lawyer reviewed it?
Excellent points.
In what jurisdictions would that be interpreted as copyright reassignment? I can see how you might argue that "re-assign copyright to myself" is WTF you want to do, but the onus is on the creator to assign copyright to you.
> There's nothing to stop me from taking your code, re-licensing it under say a proprietary license, then suing the original creator.
Suing them for what? There's nothing to prevent you from suing pretty much anyone, for any reason, including any of the other licenses. Second of all, if you're saying there's nothing preventing your suit from being successful, I still don't understand on what grounds. It doesn't matter what licence you've relicensed under if the original author holds copyright.
> There's nothing that stops me from taking your project's branding/symbol/graphics/name and claiming it as my own and then suing you.
You could do this no matter what the license. What about the WTFPL would make your lawsuit any more successful than any other licence?
> There's nothing that stops me from taking your work and then not providing attribution back to the original creator.
This is fully within the intent of the WTFPL.
> By default there is nothing that absolves the license holder from warranty nor implied fitness for use.
You have a good point that this is something many people would want. Do you know in which jurisdictions this is actually needed? I wasn't able to find any sources for this.
> Has it been challenged before in a legal sense? Has a lawyer reviewed it?
Excellent points.
Okay, lawyer time.
Some of these concerns are overblown, some aren't.
First, the license grant is clearly ambiguous. Most license grants are written in terms of exclusive rights of copyright (ie reproduction, derivative work creation, public performance). This one isn't. "Do whatever the fuck you want' is unclear as to exactly what rights you can exercise and can't, because "whatever you want" can be found to not literally be "whatever" (and in fact, when most people say "you can do whatever you want", they often mean "whatever you want within reason")
Maybe a judge will agree with "it means all of them", maybe they won't. It depends on the situation. I wouldn't want to bet my life on it. Damages would likely be minimal in such a case, except in places with high statutory damages awards. You might get enjoined from using it.
Second, As for reassigning copyright, probably not. In most jurisdictions, this requires a specific signed instrument.
Third, you can't put it under a new license and sue the creator, they also have rights to it.
Fourth, "You have a good point that this is something many people would want. Do you know in which jurisdictions this is actually needed? I wasn't able to find any sources for this."
At the very least, in the US it's a very bad idea not to disclaim warranties. Particularly since people are making warranties on mailing lists as to fitness, etc, all the time.
I can't stress enough how dangerous it is to not disclaim warranties in the US.
> Has it been challenged before in a legal sense? Has a lawyer reviewed it? Excellent points."
OSI declined to name it an open source license, considering it mostly duplicative of others.
I specifically try to push people to avoid it, and the company i work for won't distribute software that uses it.
First, the license grant is clearly ambiguous. Most license grants are written in terms of exclusive rights of copyright (ie reproduction, derivative work creation, public performance). This one isn't. "Do whatever the fuck you want' is unclear as to exactly what rights you can exercise and can't, because "whatever you want" can be found to not literally be "whatever" (and in fact, when most people say "you can do whatever you want", they often mean "whatever you want within reason")
Maybe a judge will agree with "it means all of them", maybe they won't. It depends on the situation. I wouldn't want to bet my life on it. Damages would likely be minimal in such a case, except in places with high statutory damages awards. You might get enjoined from using it.
Second, As for reassigning copyright, probably not. In most jurisdictions, this requires a specific signed instrument.
Third, you can't put it under a new license and sue the creator, they also have rights to it.
Fourth, "You have a good point that this is something many people would want. Do you know in which jurisdictions this is actually needed? I wasn't able to find any sources for this."
At the very least, in the US it's a very bad idea not to disclaim warranties. Particularly since people are making warranties on mailing lists as to fitness, etc, all the time.
I can't stress enough how dangerous it is to not disclaim warranties in the US.
> Has it been challenged before in a legal sense? Has a lawyer reviewed it? Excellent points."
OSI declined to name it an open source license, considering it mostly duplicative of others.
I specifically try to push people to avoid it, and the company i work for won't distribute software that uses it.
> I can't stress enough how dangerous it is to not disclaim warranties in the US.
Can you offer some specific examples where an open source software project has suffered harm as a result? I generally trust your judgement, but would like to see the details.
I also appreciate the lack of IAALBTDNCLA in your post, although it might seem at odds with the disclaimer of warranties you advise. Is this omission a considered decision?
Can you offer some specific examples where an open source software project has suffered harm as a result? I generally trust your judgement, but would like to see the details.
I also appreciate the lack of IAALBTDNCLA in your post, although it might seem at odds with the disclaimer of warranties you advise. Is this omission a considered decision?
"Can you offer some specific examples where an open source software project has suffered harm as a result? I generally trust your judgement, but would like to see the details."
Not yet, but only because WTFPL is the only license i'm aware of that does not disclaim warranties, and it isn't all that popular.
I can offer plenty of examples of regular old sales without them that have gone bad. I can also offer examples of cases where judgement went for the defendants because the warranties were disclaimed.
As an aside, the WTFPL has a suggested warranty disclaimer in the FAQ, which is probably not effective in some places, which is even worse :(
Not yet, but only because WTFPL is the only license i'm aware of that does not disclaim warranties, and it isn't all that popular.
I can offer plenty of examples of regular old sales without them that have gone bad. I can also offer examples of cases where judgement went for the defendants because the warranties were disclaimed.
As an aside, the WTFPL has a suggested warranty disclaimer in the FAQ, which is probably not effective in some places, which is even worse :(
I don't know if cases that involve an actual sale of a good are parallel enough to draw conclusions. I'm particularly looking for case law regarding implied warranty in the absence of a sale. My suspicion is that the disclaimer is an odd side effect of the desire to create a transaction so as to have an enforceable contract. In the absence of a sale or contract, I'm not sure what warranty would be construed. While false claims might cause damage, it seems like these might be issues even in the presence of a disclaimer.
So, there is a definitely a contract, regardless of sale. This much is 100% certain (no court has otherwise sold).
If the question is "can there be implied warranties on stuff given away for free", the answer is definitely "yes"
In that sort of case, the only question is one of "damages", not of "validity of claim"
In that sort of case, the only question is one of "damages", not of "validity of claim"
> So, there is a definitely a contract, regardless of sale.
How? Where is the mutual consideration? WTFPL looks like a gratuitous license, rather than a contract.
> If the question is "can there be implied warranties on stuff given away for free", the answer is definitely "yes"
The usual implied warranties of concern are implied warranty of merchantability and implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; the former only applies when a good is sold, and even then only when it is sold by a merchant in the class of goods to which it belongs. And the latter applies again only with a sale, and only when the buyer relies on the seller's selection of the good for a purpose identified by the buyer, or at least known by the seller before selling the product to the buyer.
How? Where is the mutual consideration? WTFPL looks like a gratuitous license, rather than a contract.
> If the question is "can there be implied warranties on stuff given away for free", the answer is definitely "yes"
The usual implied warranties of concern are implied warranty of merchantability and implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; the former only applies when a good is sold, and even then only when it is sold by a merchant in the class of goods to which it belongs. And the latter applies again only with a sale, and only when the buyer relies on the seller's selection of the good for a purpose identified by the buyer, or at least known by the seller before selling the product to the buyer.
"How? Where is the mutual consideration? WTFPL looks like a gratuitous license, rather than a contract."
So if i understand your argument, because you are required to do nothing under the license, it is not a contract for lack of consideration?
If so, this is an interesting argument.
Let me turn it around then: Why, in your view, do most public domain dedications then include disclaimers of warranty (including CC-0), if they are pointless?
As for the second, A. A vast number open source projects are sponsored or sold by merchants in the class of goods to which it belongs (consultants, companies people selling things on app stores, etc) B. You can sell something for zero dollars. C. For fitness, I specifically mentioned representations often made on mailing lists (IE as to whether the software would work for a given person)
The gratuitous license argument is interesting (though from what I can tell, legal minds greater than mind still feel the urge to disclaim warranties in that case), but the contract/sale one is just completely uninteresting to me, given the lengths courts have gone in the past.
So if i understand your argument, because you are required to do nothing under the license, it is not a contract for lack of consideration?
If so, this is an interesting argument.
Let me turn it around then: Why, in your view, do most public domain dedications then include disclaimers of warranty (including CC-0), if they are pointless?
As for the second, A. A vast number open source projects are sponsored or sold by merchants in the class of goods to which it belongs (consultants, companies people selling things on app stores, etc) B. You can sell something for zero dollars. C. For fitness, I specifically mentioned representations often made on mailing lists (IE as to whether the software would work for a given person)
The gratuitous license argument is interesting (though from what I can tell, legal minds greater than mind still feel the urge to disclaim warranties in that case), but the contract/sale one is just completely uninteresting to me, given the lengths courts have gone in the past.
While it's true that courts have held that open source licenses are enforceable (or at least not held to the contrary), I presume this is because of the specific way that each license is crafted.
Since the license wants to be enforceable, it goes out of its way to create a contract. Are you saying that the simple statement "Use this as you see fit" would also be held to be a contract, even in the absence of consideration? If so, why all the convolutions and verbiage in the current licenses?
And getting back to disclaimer of warranties, what about the absence of any stated license? Do you feel that a disclaimer of warranty is no more or less necessary with a license than without?
Since the license wants to be enforceable, it goes out of its way to create a contract. Are you saying that the simple statement "Use this as you see fit" would also be held to be a contract, even in the absence of consideration? If so, why all the convolutions and verbiage in the current licenses?
And getting back to disclaimer of warranties, what about the absence of any stated license? Do you feel that a disclaimer of warranty is no more or less necessary with a license than without?
How about DBAD?
http://www.dbad-license.org/
http://www.dbad-license.org/
> There's not much preventing me from re-assinging copyright to myself (in countries that allow it) and then suing the original creator.
By that logic, public domain is "ambiguous".
> There's nothing to stop me from taking your code, re-licensing it under say a proprietary license, then suing the original creator.
By that logic, virtually all the "BSD-style" licenses and their ilk are "ambiguous".
> There's nothing that stops me from taking your project's branding/symbol/graphics/name and claiming it as my own and then suing you.
By that logic, virtually every FOSS license that doesn't extend to branding (e.g. pretty much everything other than the MPL) is "ambiguous".
> There's nothing that stops me from taking your work and then not providing attribution back to the original creator.
See the public domain remark above.
> By default there is nothing that absolves the license holder from warranty nor implied fitness for use.
That is true, and would be a worthwhile addition as a default rather than an afterthought.
> legally, what does "DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT" actually mean?
It means "do what you want". Unless you're claiming that lawyers don't have a strong-enough grasp of the English language to be able to properly interpret extraneous expletives (which wouldn't surprise me to be quite honest...).
By that logic, public domain is "ambiguous".
> There's nothing to stop me from taking your code, re-licensing it under say a proprietary license, then suing the original creator.
By that logic, virtually all the "BSD-style" licenses and their ilk are "ambiguous".
> There's nothing that stops me from taking your project's branding/symbol/graphics/name and claiming it as my own and then suing you.
By that logic, virtually every FOSS license that doesn't extend to branding (e.g. pretty much everything other than the MPL) is "ambiguous".
> There's nothing that stops me from taking your work and then not providing attribution back to the original creator.
See the public domain remark above.
> By default there is nothing that absolves the license holder from warranty nor implied fitness for use.
That is true, and would be a worthwhile addition as a default rather than an afterthought.
> legally, what does "DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT" actually mean?
It means "do what you want". Unless you're claiming that lawyers don't have a strong-enough grasp of the English language to be able to properly interpret extraneous expletives (which wouldn't surprise me to be quite honest...).
"It means "do what you want". Unless you're claiming that lawyers don't have a strong-enough grasp of the English language to be able to properly interpret extraneous expletives (which wouldn't surprise me to be quite honest...)."
This is a very simplistic view of the phrasing.
For starters, when I ask someone "hey do you mind if i do x", and they say "do whatever you want", it doesn't usually mean "yes it is okay if i stab you with a knife", it means "yes it is okay to do x".
This phrase does not have a single, simple definition that is clear and robust.
This is a very simplistic view of the phrasing.
For starters, when I ask someone "hey do you mind if i do x", and they say "do whatever you want", it doesn't usually mean "yes it is okay if i stab you with a knife", it means "yes it is okay to do x".
This phrase does not have a single, simple definition that is clear and robust.
> This phrase does not have a single, simple definition that is clear and robust.
Since this is in the scope of, say, a program's source code, the implicit meaning would be "do what you want [with this code]". Explicitly stating that would help, but it's not really that necessary unless you feel like being needlessly pedantic.
Virtually all license agreements are also implicitly bound by jurisdictional laws, so "yet it is okay if i stab you with a knife" would not be a valid interpretation of "do whatever you want" - in a legal sense - unless the agreement is taking place in a jurisdiction in which stabbing someone with a knife is legal.
Since this is in the scope of, say, a program's source code, the implicit meaning would be "do what you want [with this code]". Explicitly stating that would help, but it's not really that necessary unless you feel like being needlessly pedantic.
Virtually all license agreements are also implicitly bound by jurisdictional laws, so "yet it is okay if i stab you with a knife" would not be a valid interpretation of "do whatever you want" - in a legal sense - unless the agreement is taking place in a jurisdiction in which stabbing someone with a knife is legal.
The implicit meaning is going to be argued over repeatedly.
Particularly when an author says "well, what i really meant by do whatever you want is 'x'"
Depending on how reasonable x is, a judge may or may not buy it.
Note also that the suggested license header is: "/* This program is free software. It comes without any warranty, to * the extent permitted by applicable law. You can redistribute it * and/or modify it under the terms of the Do What The Fuck You Want * To Public License, Version 2, as published by Sam Hocevar. See * http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/COPYING for more details. */"
This is also bad if it really lets you do whatever you want - The clause "use it or modify it under the terms of ..." implies there are limitations on how you may use/modify it - in particular, only under the terms of the WTFPL. If the WTFPL truly has no restrictions, this wording is meaningless. Under various canons of interpretation, a judge will usually find that people didn't mean for words to be meaningless. What limitations/meaning will be ascribed is also up in the air.
Realistically, the right wording to use there would have been "you may use it without restriction, as the WTFPL version 2.0 explains" (or something similar).
Again, you can argue this both ways. But it is just not the certainty it seems some want to ascribe to it.
Depending on how reasonable x is, a judge may or may not buy it.
Note also that the suggested license header is: "/* This program is free software. It comes without any warranty, to * the extent permitted by applicable law. You can redistribute it * and/or modify it under the terms of the Do What The Fuck You Want * To Public License, Version 2, as published by Sam Hocevar. See * http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/COPYING for more details. */"
This is also bad if it really lets you do whatever you want - The clause "use it or modify it under the terms of ..." implies there are limitations on how you may use/modify it - in particular, only under the terms of the WTFPL. If the WTFPL truly has no restrictions, this wording is meaningless. Under various canons of interpretation, a judge will usually find that people didn't mean for words to be meaningless. What limitations/meaning will be ascribed is also up in the air.
Realistically, the right wording to use there would have been "you may use it without restriction, as the WTFPL version 2.0 explains" (or something similar).
Again, you can argue this both ways. But it is just not the certainty it seems some want to ascribe to it.
> By that logic, public domain is "ambiguous".
The notion of public domain can vary from country to country. The first time I wanted to release something inconsequential on Google Code I was surprised that it didn't let me choose "Public domain" and forced me to choose a license. Here's their FAQ about it: http://code.google.com/p/support/wiki/FAQ#Can_I_host_code_th...?
The notion of public domain can vary from country to country. The first time I wanted to release something inconsequential on Google Code I was surprised that it didn't let me choose "Public domain" and forced me to choose a license. Here's their FAQ about it: http://code.google.com/p/support/wiki/FAQ#Can_I_host_code_th...?
Copyright is not something you can take away. It exists from the moment you create something creatively and originally.
You can however license someone to use something that is protected by copyright. This is what licenses do; they give you a license to use the content.
This is exactly what CC0 tries to do, it works around the fact that you cannot (easily) give away or stop copyright, but can state that you distance yourself from all the rights that come with having the copyright. See also: http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0
You can however license someone to use something that is protected by copyright. This is what licenses do; they give you a license to use the content.
This is exactly what CC0 tries to do, it works around the fact that you cannot (easily) give away or stop copyright, but can state that you distance yourself from all the rights that come with having the copyright. See also: http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0
Go on, sue all the people publishing stuff in the public domain. Because surely you can magically re-license it under your own copyright and sue them.
It's not that Debian lacks things to do, and they are being picky about the licenses: it's that some projects are rather negligent about their terms of licensing, sometimes downright dumb, and then somebody like Debian has to untangle the mess they created.
It isn't really that "someone like Debian has to" generally - Debian has to as a large part of their reason for existing is providing a stable, reliable, and predictable system: both in terms of content (code and other assets) and license to use said content. If they aren't picky about these things they are not staying true to their stated aims (and a number of their users would be unhappy).
> it's that some projects are rather negligent about their terms of licensing, sometimes downright dumb
Actually true. You will find competent developers who will change the license across their web app codebase from MIT to AGPL on a whim, saying AGPL is just the same as GPL.
I find legal stuff seriously interesting but also seriously scary.
Actually true. You will find competent developers who will change the license across their web app codebase from MIT to AGPL on a whim, saying AGPL is just the same as GPL.
I find legal stuff seriously interesting but also seriously scary.
Apparently it's currently no longer needed, but making sure and dealing with the legalities is a sufficient drag that it's easier to live with the renaming: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=555935
That's the other way around - Mozilla decided to start enforcing their trademark license more aggressively and told Debian to stop using the 'Firefox' trademark.
That's skipping a few steps :) Debian patched out some artwork because it didn't follow their license requirements, and the patches to remove the artwork ended up violating the trademark license. The trademark owner then did what trademark owners are required to do.
As I stated above, the artwork is now free even by Debian guidelines, so the only thing holding back Debian there seems to be inertia.
As I stated above, the artwork is now free even by Debian guidelines, so the only thing holding back Debian there seems to be inertia.
If you really want to go into the gritty details - in 2005, Gervase Markham, representing himself as speaking on behalf of Mozilla in this matter, indicated that what Debian was doing was okay:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/06/msg01182.html
In 2006, Mike Connor contacted Debian and stopped just short of saying outright that Gervase should never have done that:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=354622#59
(Also see the next few messages from Eric and Mike where they worked out some of the details)
So the short version is that there was a lot of confusion from Mozilla about what Debian should be doing here, and at each step Debian adjusted the contents of the package in accordance with the information given.
As far as the artwork license is concerned, that's actually a distraction; the conclusion of the discussion with Mike Connor was that Debian could only use the firefox trademark if the Mozilla Foundation was pre-approving all releases, and it would be quite tricky to make this work with Debian's release processes. Using the iceweasel branding is much less work for everybody and doesn't seem to cause any problems for users.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/06/msg01182.html
In 2006, Mike Connor contacted Debian and stopped just short of saying outright that Gervase should never have done that:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=354622#59
(Also see the next few messages from Eric and Mike where they worked out some of the details)
So the short version is that there was a lot of confusion from Mozilla about what Debian should be doing here, and at each step Debian adjusted the contents of the package in accordance with the information given.
As far as the artwork license is concerned, that's actually a distraction; the conclusion of the discussion with Mike Connor was that Debian could only use the firefox trademark if the Mozilla Foundation was pre-approving all releases, and it would be quite tricky to make this work with Debian's release processes. Using the iceweasel branding is much less work for everybody and doesn't seem to cause any problems for users.
Doesn't Debian also include backported security patches that aren't part of the upstream source?
Iceweasel is based on the officially supported Firefox versions, so upstream by definition has all the security patches.
The idea is that when a security bug is found, Mozilla writes a patch against the current Firefox version, but Debian must patch whatever version is the Debian Stable, so they must write a patch to the earlier version of the source. Since the code has changed in between, the patch is different, even if it fixes the same bug.
Mozilla writes patches against all supported Firefox versions (that's what being supported means!), and as already stated, Debian only uses officially supported versions for Iceweasel. So no, there are never security patches that Debian needs to backport for stable because they are always already upstream.
Look, the version of Iceweasel in Debian Stable is based on Firefox 24. According to the Firefox ESR calendar, Firefox 24 will got out of support in October. But the new version of Debian Stable won't be released before December, at least, and Debian doesn't upgrade the major version of a package in Stable.
So how exactly can Debian patch Iceweasel using Mozilla's patches between October and January?
So how exactly can Debian patch Iceweasel using Mozilla's patches between October and January?
Debian will switch to a version supported by Mozilla, just as they've done the previous times. See for example: http://lwn.net/Articles/552920/
[deleted](1)
Matthias Urlichs wins the thread:
"I'd be for this [removing offending PHP modules] in a heartbeat if it would make people switch to a saner programming language, but that's wishful thinking."
"I'd be for this [removing offending PHP modules] in a heartbeat if it would make people switch to a saner programming language, but that's wishful thinking."
Hehe, anytime, just give us a language with the same features and the same ide support etc and I'll happily let you bring along your improved standard library, nicer syntax etc.
I don't think most developers would miss the craziness, I don't think the features are tied to the craziness of the language and I'm sure a lot of us would change as soon as it became production ready (if not earlier.)
(Hoping for Hack to be a step in the rigth direction.)
I don't think most developers would miss the craziness, I don't think the features are tied to the craziness of the language and I'm sure a lot of us would change as soon as it became production ready (if not earlier.)
(Hoping for Hack to be a step in the rigth direction.)
Please don't post this flame war stuff.
From time to time people raise concerns of using PEAR packages licensed under the PHP license in GPL'ed code. In a discussion about this topic, the creator of PHP, Rasmus Lerdorf, issued the following statement:
It all comes down to semantics of what linking means. The PHP license is pretty much identical to the Apache license and you could indeed make a case for not allowing any GPL'ed software to be "linked to" from Apache either.
See http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-1.1.
The PHP license was chosen to match the Apache license because Apache and PHP are tied so closely to each other.
This hair splitting over linking, derivation and aggregation has been going on since the beginning of time. My stance is that you can indeed ship PHP licensed PEAR components on the same cd or in the same tarball as GPL'ed code because I see it as an aggregate work. This changes if you take PEAR code, modify it and copy-paste it directly into your own work. Then it moves from aggregate to derived. But the intent of the PEAR components is to be used in aggregate form. The PHP license allows you to use it in derived form as well, of course, but then you should be choosing a license other than the GPL for the derived work.
The FSF has a FAQ on aggregation here: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggre...
That text is heavily biased towards compiled software and they talk about executables and memory spaces which don't really apply in this case. If you don't consider using a PEAR component as aggregation then it logically follows that you also cannot have Apache call your code so you will have to stipulate that nobody can use your code from Apache. I think this is an extreme interpretation that pretty much nobody out there shares.
In short, I don't see an issue here. Move along.
For PECL extensions that are linked into PHP, the license must be compatible with the PHP license. That means you can not GPL a PECL extension or you would be violating the GPL. Note also that if you write an extension that links against a GPL'ed library you will be violating the GPL. If you need to link against a GPL'ed library, get permission from the author of the library to use the library under a compatible license.
The license of any PEAR/PECL package can be found in the head of all source code files, inside the <license> tag of the package description file (package.xml) and also on the package homepage.
It all comes down to semantics of what linking means. The PHP license is pretty much identical to the Apache license and you could indeed make a case for not allowing any GPL'ed software to be "linked to" from Apache either.
See http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-1.1.
The PHP license was chosen to match the Apache license because Apache and PHP are tied so closely to each other.
This hair splitting over linking, derivation and aggregation has been going on since the beginning of time. My stance is that you can indeed ship PHP licensed PEAR components on the same cd or in the same tarball as GPL'ed code because I see it as an aggregate work. This changes if you take PEAR code, modify it and copy-paste it directly into your own work. Then it moves from aggregate to derived. But the intent of the PEAR components is to be used in aggregate form. The PHP license allows you to use it in derived form as well, of course, but then you should be choosing a license other than the GPL for the derived work.
The FSF has a FAQ on aggregation here: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggre...
That text is heavily biased towards compiled software and they talk about executables and memory spaces which don't really apply in this case. If you don't consider using a PEAR component as aggregation then it logically follows that you also cannot have Apache call your code so you will have to stipulate that nobody can use your code from Apache. I think this is an extreme interpretation that pretty much nobody out there shares.
In short, I don't see an issue here. Move along.
For PECL extensions that are linked into PHP, the license must be compatible with the PHP license. That means you can not GPL a PECL extension or you would be violating the GPL. Note also that if you write an extension that links against a GPL'ed library you will be violating the GPL. If you need to link against a GPL'ed library, get permission from the author of the library to use the library under a compatible license.
The license of any PEAR/PECL package can be found in the head of all source code files, inside the <license> tag of the package description file (package.xml) and also on the package homepage.
But this isn't about linking issues.
This is about distribution issues.
What is the contradictory part of the license? And... What's the point if a license that contradicts itself? How on earth do they expect to enforce their conditions?
It's things like this that make me think "what did we do to deserve PHP?"
It's things like this that make me think "what did we do to deserve PHP?"
It's not that the license is self-contradictory, it's that the license text (as written here: http://php.net/license/3_01.txt) implies that the software is distributed only by the PHP Group, and is therefore not usable without modification by anyone outside the PHP Group. The solution is simple: modify the text of your project's license to have similar clauses to the PHP license, but not mention the PHP Group, OR re-license your software under the BSD license or another, similar license.
The solution is simple: modify the text of your project's license to have similar clauses to the PHP license, but not mention the PHP Group
That's not so simple; as a work produced by someone, a legal document may be subject to copyright. So you might need a license to the license to modify and reuse it :)
http://www.adamsdrafting.com/the-contract-drafter-as-copyrig...
That's not so simple; as a work produced by someone, a legal document may be subject to copyright. So you might need a license to the license to modify and reuse it :)
http://www.adamsdrafting.com/the-contract-drafter-as-copyrig...
Hmm... Is it possible to "self-host" a license? That is, is it possible to have a license licensed under itself?
I don't know; and I'm not sure if anyone knows. As far as I know, there's no jurisprudence about the copyright of copyright licenses.
The GPL is itself copyright, but its licence doesn't permit modification. One example.
But was that tested in court?
It's possible, but this is exactly the line pf reasoning that leads to self-contradicting an non-sencial licencing terms.
The contradictory part is that it makes several explicit references to the PHP project itself, which make no sense if applied to a project which is not PHP. In fact, this license explicitly says "THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE PHP DEVELOPMENT TEAM" which is patently false for any software besides PHP itself.
The problem is that lots of other projects need to apply some license, and just for simplicity say "I'll just apply the PHP license," even though it makes absolutely no sense for anything but the PHP project itself.
The problem is that lots of other projects need to apply some license, and just for simplicity say "I'll just apply the PHP license," even though it makes absolutely no sense for anything but the PHP project itself.
I see the same problem lots with code that claims to be MIT and BSD licensed, but either doesn't include the license, or includes the license template with the placeholders for the year and copyright holder unfilled.
It makes complying with the license impossible.
It makes complying with the license impossible.
In the 90s it was common to see licence text refer to "the regents" even when that made no sense, but that's faded away as actual template licence text, meant to be used as a template, has become readily available.
I don't think it affected the interpretation much. If the author and the regents disclaim the warranty, and there are no regents, the straightforward interpretation is that the author disclaims warranty.
I don't think it affected the interpretation much. If the author and the regents disclaim the warranty, and there are no regents, the straightforward interpretation is that the author disclaims warranty.
"The Regents" was likely an artifact of advertising clause, not of people being lazy filling in placeholders in the license.
(I believe quite a few bits of Windows will still, thanks to advertising clause, remind you about the Regents of the University of California)
(I believe quite a few bits of Windows will still, thanks to advertising clause, remind you about the Regents of the University of California)
There's nothing contradictory to the license, the license is interpreted by debian's legal and FTP Masters as only allowing distribution by the "PHP Group", any package using that license which is not from "PHP group" is thus "non-distributable".
The reality is that the PHP license is a license which exists solely for PHP itself and makes no sense whatsoever for projects which are not PHP, leaving them essentially license-less and thus "all rights reserved".
The reality is that the PHP license is a license which exists solely for PHP itself and makes no sense whatsoever for projects which are not PHP, leaving them essentially license-less and thus "all rights reserved".
So the PHP license is as good as PHP itself. What a surprise.
Not directly relevant, but is it me is is lwn.net one of the ugliest sites ever. practically anything, including dropping all the formatting altogether, would make it look better.
In that vein, I think I've identified a CS-specific visual syndrome that makes CS people always choose a bizarre shade of salmon pink for everything. See aforementioned lwn sidebar, and other exhibits
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
http://www.lyx.org/images/about/main_window.png
(there are others i can't be bothered finding right now, apache foundation has a number of gems, and more that have thankfully been redesigned in the last few years)
> It is clear, he said, that PHP doesn't care about the misuse of its license and the misusers don't understand that they are making a mistake.
You could replace "license" with a lot of other words and it would still a possibly accurate statement. "mysql api" comes to mind, as well as "classes" and "URL query variables like $_GET"...
You could replace "license" with a lot of other words and it would still a possibly accurate statement. "mysql api" comes to mind, as well as "classes" and "URL query variables like $_GET"...
Oh, here we go again. This is unnecessary bashing.
A bad HN automobile analogy would be if Ford had a clickwrap license on all new cars that summarized to "This Focus model car is provided by Ford, Ford wrote this Focus model car UI, Ford distributes this specific Ford Focus model, and you can officially do the FOSS thing with it, including Ford will not provide any guarantees". (note I'm guessing this isn't the real license on the ford focus UI, LOL, just a made up example)
And then GM sells a car, lets say, the Buick LaCrosse, and for reasons of apparent insanity slaps the Ford license on their car.
Next people are all WTF because GM released something under a license claiming that Ford owns it, wrote it, distributes it, and Ford won't provide guarantees (implying, I guess, that GM will).
Can I legally resell a GM car that claims its owned by Ford? So who owns this "GM" car, and if the license slapped on it is literally nonsense, is it even legally licensed software? So you're trying to sell a LaCross under the Focus license, are you claiming this thing is actually a Focus or that GM is a division of Ford, or Ford won't provide warranty coverage so I guess its implied GM will. If the license claims this is owned by Ford, but I bought it from a GM dealer, who's permission do I need to ask to relicense if needed? If I intentionally violate the license, can GM sue me if in writing they claim Ford owns this software, not GM? Or if Ford wanted, just to be jerks, could they sue me for using this GM software, because after all the license says Ford owns it. If the software crashes and kills people is a license falsely claiming Ford owns it a legal liability for GM for defamation (Ford owns it, its their fault not ours)?