Posted by MallocVoidstar 4 days ago
It turns out we did attribute the right way (in our terms of use) and could prove it with logs of when we added the language and when it was removed after we removed the image, but I am sure they nail people all the time with this strategy. This didnt stop them from sending 20 emails, demand lawyers get on the phone, etc.
There are a couple of similar scams like this out there.
His stuff is so widespread that the consensus on Wikimedia Commons was to keep his photos and add a warning so that no one ends up accidentally using it. Some accused him of sock-puppetry to get his content into a place.
Today, intellectual property maximalism is a much more mainstream position so perhaps modern Internet users will think that he is in the right, but I think it's a bit much.
Here's the thread where he's discussed: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27...
Here's an example forced-attribution photo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flaming_Lips.jpg
1. Post the photo to Wikimedia Commons
2. Mark it CC-BY or derivative (say CC-BY-SA etc.)
3. Have a highly precise attribution clause
4. Sue everyone who uses it without the specific attribution
The funny thing about this copyleft troll is that Someone Who Is Not Him creates accounts on Reddit (e.g. this one[0]) that post exclusively about how they made a mistake and the photographer was well within his rights to sue and you should take him very seriously and negotiate the amount.
> We actually violated copyright law before he wrote to us. So it was our mistake and we apologized for that.
I really should create a List page for this on my personal wiki so I can remember all these guys. I find this kind of behavior galling.
People did bring up this stuff here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Der_Wolf_im_Wal.....
But since I don't speak German well enough and inevitably this is going to end up in such a situation where you have to, I think it best I don't pursue deletion here. Hopefully a German speaker will see fit, referencing the other cases here.
They were kept to preserve a record of their having been uploaded, and to not create a legal risk for third parties who might be relying on the Commons page as their way to provide attribution.
The original proposal was to keep the image pages with the metadata, but delete the image files. That turned out to have some technical hurdles, so instead the images were overwritten with versions containing big ugly attribution messages, to discourage their use.
Marco Verch managed to get his stuff deleted: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests...
So it's a question of the execution of the operation really.
By the way, do you also have the same user handle on Reddit? I have the vaguest memory of you quoting someone else on the subject of denying a person suffering on the street drugs that went something to the effect of not wanting to do it because denying such a man drugs deny him his only escape from such reality or something of the sort.
I never did find that comment again, and it's been at the back of my mind for years (perhaps even a decade) and now I'm not even sure if I've asked you this before.
What signifies, says some one, giving halfpence to beggars? they only lay it out in gin or tobacco. "And why should they be denied such sweeteners of their existence (says Johnson)? it is surely very savage to refuse them every possible avenue to pleasure, reckoned too coarse for our own acceptance. Life is a pill which none of us can bear to swallow without gilding; yet for the poor we delight in stripping it still barer, and are not ashamed to shew even visible displeasure, if ever the bitter taste is taken from their mouths."
-- Piozzi: Anecdotes
All these are clear. The wedding officiant isn’t saying “You might have permission to kiss the bride! Just try it and we’ll find out! Ha ha!”
To interpret this as saying that you might be licensed is just as nonsensical as that in this context. It’s in a file named “LICENSE.txt” explicitly meant to describe the license terms.
Would ‘are’ be better? I’d say yes, but it’s silly to argue that this isn’t proper English for granting permission.
Even if you're a lawyer, whether it's obvious to you is irrelevant: it has to be obvious to everyone. And if it's not (and it should be abundantly clear that it's not, given the linked discussion), the license needs fixing.
Yes, there's a definite codex of legal terms that have specific legal meaning but sound like "open to interpretation" english, but, those are vanishingly small.
Largely, if you read defensively and try to read what is not said, then you get very very far.
Source: spent about half-a-decade with very expensive swiss lawyers.
How far is "very, very far"? Is it far enough that, if there were a lawsuit, my liability would truly be capped at €10,000? Because that's how much liability I can afford. If that "very very far" guarantees such a limit, then yes, I agree it is very very far. But my experience tells me that without formal legal training, I cannot be confident that I have interpreted legal language correctly enough to rely on that conclusion.
Open source licenses are often relatively readable, but corporate contracts and other legal texts, including those from companies that market themselves as open source in questionable ways, can contain subtleties and loopholes. As a layperson, it is difficult to know how much exposure I might have if I misunderstand a detail and act in contradiction of the license terms.
Perhaps we are simply on opposite sides of the D-K effect here. Or maybe you simply are good with legalese and I'm being unnecessarily skeptical.
If experience with lawyers matters, I have spent many years working with lawyers across Europe. If that taught me anything, it is to avoid assuming that I can reliably interpret legal language without proper training.
Yes, I can usually grasp perhaps 80 percent of what a contract is saying at a high level. But in every contract we reviewed, lawyers consistently found issues or implications I would not have noticed. They then either refined the contract or advised taking a calculated risk. So I think it is reasonable for me to remain cautious about my own ability to interpret legal language with confidence.
Liability is not capped by your ability to understand the law. If that is your concern, you shouldn't be doing business anywhere, US or otherwise.
What you are saying is partly true and overly simplified. Are you a lawyer? Do you have legal expertise? If not, I don't understand why you feel compelled to advise on things you understand so little yourself? Are you going to compare my contract with my vendor with speeding ticket? Are you kidding me?
Comparing contractual liability to speeding fines makes me think you have not a clue of what you're talking about. Speeding penalties are statutory and predefined. Commercial liability usually is not. In Europe, most serious business disputes never go near small claims courts. They go to ordinary civil courts or arbitration, where damages depend on the contract, applicable law, and the specific facts. There is often no automatic cap unless the contract explicitly sets one, and even then its enforceability depends on jurisdiction and circumstances.
Small claims limits only restrict which court hears the case, not the total liability. A claimant can often file in a higher court or pursue related claims elsewhere. And in cross-border European business, jurisdiction, governing law, and enforcement become additional risks. Getting this wrong can expose you to far more liability than you expected.
Liability is not limited by your personal understanding of the law. That is why businesses do not rely on guesswork. Contracts are reviewed, liability caps are negotiated, insurance is obtained and lawyers are paid to spot risks that non-lawyers routinely miss.
> If that is your concern, you shouldn't be doing business anywhere, US or otherwise.
Yes, that is my concern. I do business in Europe. By paying actual laywers. And I'll continue to do so. Thank you very much.
Then why are you asking for legal advice on HN?
> How far is "very, very far"? Is it far enough that, if there were a lawsuit, my liability would truly be capped at €10,000?
I didn't ask for legal advice. I was challenging my parent comment with a rhetorical question. With that rhetorical question, I meant that there is no way for the parent commenter to ensure that liabilities will be bounded, so I was implying that they were incorrect in saying that one can get very ver far. Please read the messages more carefully before jumping to incorrect conclusions.
It is - it might not be successful (the court may rule against you) - but if what you thought "may" meant was close to what a "reasonable person" would have thought, you may be ruled against with no or low penalty.
Exactly what I said.
Also, the ambiguity is not only in the "you may be" part, but also in the "to create compiled versions" part. Open source is more than creating compiled versions of source code.
You may be licensed to use source code to create compiled versions not produced by Mattermost, Inc. in one of two ways:
1. Under the Free Software Foundation’s GNU AGPL v3.0, subject to the exceptions outlined in this policy; or
2. Under a commercial license available from Mattermost, Inc. by contacting commercial@mattermost.com
This really seems like a dual license situation where they are saying "Let's encourage Open Source, but if you want to just use our work to make yourself rich and not even acknowledge you're using us then fuck you, pay us."
I expect this to become more common as companies routinely infringe on OSS licenses while simultaneously many companies are hesitant to use OSS because of licenses. This at least gives an out for the good actors and allow devs to make money (other than being reliant on donations, because... that's worked out...).
But maybe I'm misunderstanding? If so, I don't know what I'm missing
You're apparently missing the two points I made in the post you are replying to, or at the very least you're not responding to them. By which I don't mean to say they are necessarily valid points.
You are licensed to use the source code in Admin Tools and Configuration Files (server/templates/, server/i18n/, server/public/, webapp/ and all subdirectories thereof) under the Apache License v2.0.
Apache (OSS):
|- server/
| |- i18n/
| |- public/
| |- templates/
|- webapp/
Not Apache (pay us/not OSS):
|- api/
|- e2e-tests/
|- server/
| |- bin/
| |- build/
| |- cmd/
| |- enterprise/
| |- scripts/
| |- Makefile
| |- path.go
| |- this is not a complete list but you get the point
|- tools/
Again, I am open to misunderstanding but that's my read.
Also note that they have an enterprise license (/server/enterprise/License): https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/blob/master/server/...
The README on the enterprise directory also links to a page with more detail (FAQ): https://docs.mattermost.com/product-overview/frequently-aske...
In the anglophone world, yes. In many other parts of the world, the gratis/libre distinction is clear in the language used.
"Mattermost is an open source platform for secure collaboration across the entire software development lifecycle.. "
[1] https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/commit/0cc906d07e73...
MIT for binaries distributed by Mattermost.
But, if you compile it yourself: GNU AGPL v3.0 XOR Paid-for Enterprise License
Then, for some odd reason, they append the text of Apache License Version 2.0!!!
Note that they have multiple licenses. This isn't entirely uncommon. The difference licenses apply to different things.
"...You are licensed to use the source code in Admin Tools and Configuration Files (server/templates/, server/i18n/, server/public/, webapp/ and all subdirectories thereof) under the Apache License v2.0...."
I don't think this has ever been the case. If a license is not mentioned, it is always "All rights reserved" by the authors of the project, by the Berne convention (1886).
Always wonder what leads people to write like this. What does "as such" add to the sentence? At least "at this time" is temporally conditional to the future, it has purpose.
Entertaining is posh "thinking about" or "interested in" so had the merit of being one word in place of two but so is "considering"
Are we not entertained?
It's what we used to call "load-bearing vagueness"
Stealing this. That's ACE!!
I guess, as long as people remember that zero is a possible number in 'any'
> but they disclaim making changes such as these for this purpose?
That's my read
I'm open to a different title than "LICENSE: _may be_ licensed to use source code; incorrect license grant", which is obscure enough to qualify as misleading if not linkbait. However, its replacement should be an accurate, neutral title that preferably uses representative language from the article itself (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).
Re the "don't editorialize" bit in the rules: If you want to say what you think is important about an article, that's fine, but do it by adding a comment to the thread. Then your view will be on a level playing field with everyone else's: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
Mattermost should be aware of the contra proferentem ('interpretation against the draftsman') doctrine of contractual interpretation. Ambiguity works against the party who provided the wording.
Sometimes a license is confusing to a layman but consists of standard, established legal jargon. Don't touch the code until you know what it means from a source that knows what they are talking about. Don't take internet guesses or opinions as fact.
This is why using standard well drafted licenses verbatim is so useful. Legal phrases that have established meanings clear things up for legally even if they confuse the rest of us.
I think we understand that random devs on GitHub aren’t the right ones to resolve it, but I find it hard to believe the correct response is for the company to do nothing.
It's been 7 years and not fixed, apparently.
Legally? Likely not. Ethically, definitely not.
Legally, (in the US at least,) any ambiguity in the interpretation of a contract will most often be interpreted to benefit of the party that didn't draft the contract. In this case, the interpretation of license would likely benefit the user. But then, I'm only repeating what you've already said. So the ambiguity here doesn't benefit them legally speaking. I do agree, a frontline engineer shouldn't be trying to clarify the legal meaning in a github issue (without the legal expertise a good legal team would contribute). I don't agree that leaving the understanding to be ambiguous, is a solid legal decision.
Then, ethically. If someone ask if the license is trying to trap them, and all you do is shrug. You're not the good guy, ethically speaking.
> This is why using standard well drafted licenses verbatim is so useful. Legal phrases that have established meanings clear things up for legally even if they confuse the rest of us.
This may be pedantically true, but the part that trumps the US doctrine of contra proferentem, is the original intent that both parties likely understood. The legal interpretation, while you say it may be confusing for some people, doesn't override what the parties reasonably understood the contract to state. Or in this case, license, to grant.
That is to say, if you represent your offering as open source, and enjoy the benefits of such. It's a fundamental error to assume the courts will later back you up when you change your mind, and attempt a rug pull. And that's ignoring the ethical implications, which are enough for me to wanna peace out. (I.e. if you're pissing off your users and supporters, it was the wrong decision.)
Just forget the company and software, there is no reason to bitch about it. 7 years is too long to fix.