TLDR is the license is specifically intentionally designed to only be applied to certain named products from exactly one named group of coders, but random internet people are applying it to random code written by random people.
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)?
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.
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.
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.
Comments
TLDR is the license is specifically intentionally designed to only be applied to certain named products from exactly one named group of coders, but random internet people are applying it to random code written by random people.
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)?
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.
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.
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.
Yours is a very interesting use of car analogy.
You can never have too many.