An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't even notice

Re:An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't... by PeterisP on Wednesday January 26, 2022 @10:47AM (#30086903)

The point is that licenses and license offers are self-sufficient, a "clarification" from another document simply does not constitute a binding clause in a license.

If you have an offer of the MIT license from the author (as in the LICENSE.txt), then no clarifications or restrictions linked from the home page affect it, and other offers of other licenses are possible but not relevant if you like this particular offer.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't... by nerdponx on Wednesday January 26, 2022 @12:23PM (#30088469)

The MIT license also clearly states that the software comes with NO WARRANTY (in all caps) and that you use it at your own risk. I don't see what the MIT license has to do with this at all.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't... by teddyh on Wednesday January 26, 2022 @10:51AM (#30086957)

Maybe. That’s a very… programmer-like way of looking at licenses, though, and it’s not necessarily compatible with how licenses are interpreted by judges.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't... by abofh on Wednesday January 26, 2022 @01:06PM (#30089209)

There is no indication that anyone was charged to use the software- it was the software that charged them

[ Parent | on HN ]