News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Misuse of Creative Commons-licensed photo leads to public apology.

Re:Misuse of Creative Commons-licensed photo leads to public... by hodgesrm on Saturday July 16, 2016 @11:34AM (#12106670)
Open source license regimes are of dubious value unless there's visible case law backing it up. It's great that Niccolo Caranti made the effort to defend the Creative Commons license--this is a lot of effort regardless of whether you recover legal costs.

(Personally I'll make double sure to attribute images from Wikipedia from here on out.)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Misuse of Creative Commons-licensed photo leads to public... by icebraining on Saturday July 16, 2016 @12:49PM (#12106951)
Open source license regimes are of dubious value unless there's visible case law backing it up.

The logic is backwards, though - if the license isn't valid, the default in the law is to deny the use of the work.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Misuse of Creative Commons-licensed photo leads to public... by hodgesrm on Saturday July 16, 2016 @02:21PM (#12107338)
Assuming the denial is actually enforced, which it normally is not. And generally speaking the only enforcement mechanism is for somebody with standing to bring a lawsuit.

GPL V2 licenses are violated on a constant basis in my personal experience. (I used to run a business that competed in the MySQL market.) It is relatively difficult to detect inclusion of GPL code in shipped binaries, for example, especially if the audience of users is not large or the binaries are part of a larger system.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Misuse of Creative Commons-licensed photo leads to public... by dietrichepp on Saturday July 16, 2016 @01:06PM (#12107024)
There are some cases where infringement was recognized but damages were $0 because that was the amount the creator would have earned for a licensed use. Unless I'm remembering incorrectly.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Misuse of Creative Commons-licensed photo leads to public... by tamana on Saturday July 16, 2016 @01:50PM (#12107209)
Citation needed, that's patently absurd. Unless the damages were $0 PLUS following the terms of the license (adding a statement of credit for BSD, offering a download of the modified source for GPL etc)

In general, the remedy for violating a license is to follow through on the license agreement.

[ Parent | on HN ]