1 |
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
>> Didn't the user already accept the license by putting it in ACCEPT_LICENSE? |
4 |
>> If not, portage will not download it. |
5 |
>> |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Well, I'd argue that it is impossible to "accept a license" in the |
8 |
> first place. It is possible to agree to a contract if there is |
9 |
> consideration on both sides and a meeting of the minds. |
10 |
|
11 |
That doesn't mean you didn't / cannot accept, merely that some (all?) |
12 |
provisions are likely unenforceable in a court of law. I don't think |
13 |
EULAs have been ruled illegal yet. |
14 |
|
15 |
> |
16 |
> Copyright says you can't copy something. A license says you might be |
17 |
> able to. You don't have to "accept" a license to benefit it. A |
18 |
> license does not restrict what a user can do, it restricts what the |
19 |
> person issuing the license can do (I can't sue you for redistributing |
20 |
> my code if I licensed it to you under the GPL). Some licenses are |
21 |
> conditional - I only limit my own ability to sue you if you give |
22 |
> people a copy of the source for any binary you give them, and if you |
23 |
> don't do that I am now free to sue you. |
24 |
|
25 |
Have you read the yEd license? I mean it does restrict what users can do: |
26 |
|
27 |
"By installing the Software, the Licensee is indicating that he/she |
28 |
has read and understands this Agreement and agrees to be bound by its |
29 |
terms and conditions." |
30 |
|
31 |
"The Licensee is granted a non-exclusive and non-transferable right to |
32 |
install one copy of the Software and use it as an application. The |
33 |
Software may not be used as part of an automated process. The Licensee |
34 |
may not reverse engineer, disassemble, decompile, or unjar the |
35 |
Software, or otherwise attempt to derive the source code of the |
36 |
Software." |
37 |
|
38 |
How is that not restricting what the end user can do? A court of law |
39 |
could find a number of wiggle areas (what does it mean to 'install the |
40 |
software' for instance, in some countries reverse engineering is fair |
41 |
user and this right cannot be taken away by a license, etc..) |
42 |
|
43 |
> |
44 |
> Ultimately the foundation for licenses is copyright law, and other |
45 |
> forms of IP law. Copyright says we can't distribute anything we don't |
46 |
> create except under very specific circumstances. A license says that |
47 |
> we can distribute stuff without fear of lawsuit under some conditions. |
48 |
|
49 |
I don't think we are talking solely about redistribution rights but |
50 |
also end user rights (EULA.) In this case their license (tries to) |
51 |
cover both aspects. |
52 |
|
53 |
> |
54 |
> The yEd license says we can't distribute anything, so as far as I can |
55 |
> see, we might as well not have any license at all. We're not |
56 |
> protected at all from a lawsuit, except to the degree that we don't do |
57 |
> anything that we can be sued for (like distributing their software). |
58 |
> |
59 |
> But yes, from a technical standpoint you can only install a package if |
60 |
> its license is contained in ACCEPT_LICENSE. Whether this has any |
61 |
> legal meaning is up to you or a court with jurisdiction to decide. |
62 |
|
63 |
Its unclear if ACCEPT_LICENSE actually implies the user read and |
64 |
accepted the EULA; but since the EULA is implicit w/installing the |
65 |
software it is unclear to me (in my lay opinion) if this actually |
66 |
matters. |
67 |
|
68 |
> |
69 |
> Rich |
70 |
> |