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

I think it makes people believe they will enforce the license unevenly to satisfy their personal feelings about who is using it, as well as add an unwritten "these kinds of people are are not allowed to use our software" clause to their license.


A sensible person might wonder what justification you have for that belief. Looking at the respective histories of both groups, I think you'll find that the violators are the sort of people to engage in uneven enforcement.

Moreover, is there another Mastodon license violator who's getting away with it because of their ostensibly favourable politics? What does it mean for your supposition if there's only the one violator?


If that happens you would have a point, until then you are preemptively playing victim.


I'm no victim, play or otherwise; I didn't violate the license under which Mastodon is provided and never will.


> I think it makes people believe they will enforce the license unevenly to satisfy their personal feelings about who is using it

Maybe they will. As copyright holders, they are allowed to do that (though I don't think they have copyright assignation, so there would also be lots of _other_ copyright holders who could attempt different enforcement, presumably).


Right, the copyright holder could grant an alternative license with any terms they like to any specific recipients they'd like to.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

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

Search: