Re: enable MELPA & Marmalade by defaul [was: mykie.el]

[David Kastrup]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> writes:

> Grim Schjetne writes:
>
>  > I viewed a random package in Marmalade and it had no indication of a
>  > license whatsoever. Perhaps the author intended to release it as free
>  > software
>
> If so, it *is* free software.  It's just very risky for users, because
> without a verifiable statement of license, the author could change his
> mind and the users would have no recourse.

A user does not have a "recourse" anyway.  The author can always change
his mind even with a verifiable statement of license and sue.  A
verifiable statement of license is no help against that, but it is a
good defense.  Note that in the U.S.A., the financial risk of even a
meritless lawsuit is enough of a detraction for anybody: only in the
case of _frivolous_ lawsuits (and the barrier for that is rather high)
does the defendant get to reclaim his court fees and attorney costs.

> True, failing to post a license violates best practices, but it's
> unlikely that even a patent shark would upload a file to Marmalade in
> the hopes that they could sue users for enough money to pay court
> costs.

That's not the shark model for small fry.  The shark model is to sue
and/or send a cease and desist letter, then settle out of court for less
than the cost of a successful defense.

> It would be nice if the repos would enforce a policy of removing
> packages that do not contain an explicit statement of license.

Yes, definitely.

-- 
David Kastrup