▲ 304 ▼ Redis is no longer OSS (fosstodon.org) submitted 2 years ago by mesamunefire@lemmy.world to c/programming@programming.dev 111 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de 27 points 2 years ago (2 children) You may not make the functionality of the Software or a Modified version available to third parties as a service or distribute the Software or a Modified version in a manner that makes the functionality of the Software available to third parties. 🫡 permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] kureta@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago* x = "make the functionality of the Software or a Modified version available to third parties as a service" y = "distribute the Software or a Modified version" You may not X, or (Y in a manner that X) Perfectly normal legalese. Just like "included but not limited to..." it sets a condition and adds a more specific version of that condition, which seems redundant but helps during actual litigation. permalink fedilink source parent [–] matcha_addict@lemy.lol -3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) They cheaped out on the lawyer. Maybe it's a chatGPT lawyer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) I don't see anything wrong with the quote? Other than the policy itself being a ridiculous change, the wording is pretty standard legal speak. Not sure why you're jumping to "ChatGPT Lawyer" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] matcha_addict@lemy.lol -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) You may not X in a way that X Definitely reads weird to me. It should suffice to say "you may not X". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) You may not X in a way that Y implies that You may X in a way that does not Y, and is more specific (and changes the meaning of the license) vs You may not X The legal distinction in this case allows for distributing the software for example as source code, but not as a service. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] kureta@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago* x = "make the functionality of the Software or a Modified version available to third parties as a service" y = "distribute the Software or a Modified version" You may not X, or (Y in a manner that X) Perfectly normal legalese. Just like "included but not limited to..." it sets a condition and adds a more specific version of that condition, which seems redundant but helps during actual litigation. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] matcha_addict@lemy.lol -3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) They cheaped out on the lawyer. Maybe it's a chatGPT lawyer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) I don't see anything wrong with the quote? Other than the policy itself being a ridiculous change, the wording is pretty standard legal speak. Not sure why you're jumping to "ChatGPT Lawyer" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] matcha_addict@lemy.lol -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) You may not X in a way that X Definitely reads weird to me. It should suffice to say "you may not X". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) You may not X in a way that Y implies that You may X in a way that does not Y, and is more specific (and changes the meaning of the license) vs You may not X The legal distinction in this case allows for distributing the software for example as source code, but not as a service. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) I don't see anything wrong with the quote? Other than the policy itself being a ridiculous change, the wording is pretty standard legal speak. Not sure why you're jumping to "ChatGPT Lawyer" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] matcha_addict@lemy.lol -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) You may not X in a way that X Definitely reads weird to me. It should suffice to say "you may not X". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) You may not X in a way that Y implies that You may X in a way that does not Y, and is more specific (and changes the meaning of the license) vs You may not X The legal distinction in this case allows for distributing the software for example as source code, but not as a service. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] matcha_addict@lemy.lol -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) You may not X in a way that X Definitely reads weird to me. It should suffice to say "you may not X". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) You may not X in a way that Y implies that You may X in a way that does not Y, and is more specific (and changes the meaning of the license) vs You may not X The legal distinction in this case allows for distributing the software for example as source code, but not as a service. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) You may not X in a way that Y implies that You may X in a way that does not Y, and is more specific (and changes the meaning of the license) vs You may not X The legal distinction in this case allows for distributing the software for example as source code, but not as a service. permalink fedilink source parent