1 |
On 10/29/2012 03:32 PM, Matija Šuklje wrote: |
2 |
> On Ponedeljek 29. of October 2012 15.52.20 Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
3 |
>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Matthew Thode wrote: |
4 |
>>> It's looking hard to be able to add the spotify ebuild to tree because |
5 |
>>> of licensing concerns. |
6 |
>>> |
7 |
>>> http://www.spotify.com/us/legal/end-user-agreement/ |
8 |
>> |
9 |
>> This concerns not so much the client software, but their "service" and |
10 |
>> the contents provided through it. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Well, the “Spotify Software” is included at least it §4 and also in general |
13 |
> included in the “service” term. The license agreement is lacking though. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> In any case Gentoo can’t be the 3rd party here and therefore not redistribute |
16 |
> it. |
17 |
> |
18 |
>>> 10:02 < prometheanfire > do you have a plaintext version? I can copy |
19 |
>>> the text, but just thought I'd ask :D |
20 |
>>> 10:02 < dan^spotify > No, and copy+pasting it into a text file isn't |
21 |
>>> something we really want you to to do, since it changes from time-to-time |
22 |
>>> 10:04 < prometheanfire > ok, I'll see what the proper course of action |
23 |
>>> is, I think you have us accept the license on first start right? |
24 |
>>> 10:04 < dan^spotify > Correct |
25 |
>>> 10:04 < dan^spotify > Well, first login |
26 |
>>> 10:05 < prometheanfire > just as good probably |
27 |
>>> 10:05 < dan^spotify > If you've already accepted the most up-to-date |
28 |
>>> license on another machine, you won't be prompted again |
29 |
>>> |
30 |
>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=373093 |
31 |
>>> |
32 |
>>> They want it to be accepted through the app. Is there a way this is |
33 |
>>> compatible with Gentoo? |
34 |
>> |
35 |
>> We need a plaintext license file for the client that we put in |
36 |
>> ${PORTDIR}licenses/, so users can look at it before they install the |
37 |
>> package. |
38 |
> |
39 |
> Yup. |
40 |
> |
41 |
> They probably deem §§ 3 and 4 to be the license, but it’s quite lacking IMHO. |
42 |
> So since full copyright is default, this means that we’re not allowed to |
43 |
> redistribute it. RESTRICT="mirror" we have to do here. |
44 |
> |
45 |
> As a sub-optimal solution, Rich’s idea to create a Spotify license and point |
46 |
> the users to the actual EULA. |
47 |
> |
48 |
> But unless they clarify the software license for their *client*, I’d rather we |
49 |
> don’t include it. Too messy. |
50 |
> |
51 |
>> Maybe it would make more sense to add one of the free alternatives? |
52 |
>> |
53 |
>> http://despotify.se/ |
54 |
>> https://gitorious.org/libopenspotify |
55 |
>> |
56 |
>> media-sound/despotify is already in Sunrise, bug 307795. |
57 |
> |
58 |
> Seems a better idea IMHO. |
59 |
> |
60 |
> |
61 |
> cheers, |
62 |
> Matija |
63 |
> |
64 |
> P.S. As Rich mentioned, the difference between a (real) license and “license |
65 |
> agreement” is that a license grants you more rights then you get by law and |
66 |
> therefore you don’t have to agree to it, since your rights are not diminished; |
67 |
> a so called license agreement (EULA, ToS, whatever_agreement) has nothing to |
68 |
> do with a (real) license apart from the falsely borrowed name and you have to |
69 |
> agree with it, since your statutory rights are diminished/voided. |
70 |
> |
71 |
Ya, I've asked for clarification there, unless we get something more |
72 |
explicit it stays out of tree. |
73 |
|
74 |
-- |
75 |
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |