Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That "repo" appears to exist solely for housing the release artifacts, for those who came to the comments looking for "the goods"

Also, https://github.com/macos-fuse-t/fuse-t/blob/main/License.txt appears to be "playing lawyer"



> Also, https://github.com/macos-fuse-t/fuse-t/blob/main/License.txt appears to be "playing lawyer"

Do you have any specific concerns with the text of the license? The text seems clear enough that there don't appear to be any potential liabilities from using the software in a personal capacity.

As I understand it, the worst that could happen is that the license/software author could unknowingly incur liabilities from statutory or implied warranties - i.e. they left out some important exclusions that could be brought to bear if a plaintiff successfully construed the license as a contract.

(IANAL, but I've read a lot about software licenses over the years and have dealt with a legal challenge related to dual commercial/OSS licensing)


Aside from the great sibling observation, I'll pile onto that by pointing out they seem to have truncated the URL for their LGPL repo citation

IANAL-either but my mental model is that one should not "blaze trails" in making up licenses. I find it does not pass the straight-face test that no other license in the known world captures the author's intentions, so they had to make one up on the fly, typos and all


For one thing, they copied the clauses from the BSD license, including references to “the following disclaimer”, but omitted the disclaimer itself.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: