Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New license: yEd Software License Agreement

[Alec Warner]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@×××××.com> wrote:
>> Didn't the user already accept the license by putting it in ACCEPT_LICENSE?
>>  If not, portage will not download it.
>>
>
> Well, I'd argue that it is impossible to "accept a license" in the
> first place.  It is possible to agree to a contract if there is
> consideration on both sides and a meeting of the minds.

That doesn't mean you didn't / cannot accept, merely that some (all?)
provisions are likely unenforceable in a court of law. I don't think
EULAs have been ruled illegal yet.

>
> Copyright says you can't copy something.  A license says you might be
> able to.  You don't have to "accept" a license to benefit it.  A
> license does not restrict what a user can do, it restricts what the
> person issuing the license can do (I can't sue you for redistributing
> my code if I licensed it to you under the GPL).  Some licenses are
> conditional - I only limit my own ability to sue you if you give
> people a copy of the source for any binary you give them, and if you
> don't do that I am now free to sue you.

Have you read the yEd license? I mean it does restrict what users can do:

"By installing the Software, the Licensee is indicating that he/she
has read and understands this Agreement and agrees to be bound by its
terms and conditions."

"The Licensee is granted a non-exclusive and non-transferable right to
install one copy of the Software and use it as an application. The
Software may not be used as part of an automated process. The Licensee
may not reverse engineer, disassemble, decompile, or unjar the
Software, or otherwise attempt to derive the source code of the
Software."

How is that not restricting what the end user can do? A court of law
could find a number of wiggle areas (what does it mean to 'install the
software' for instance, in some countries reverse engineering is fair
user and this right cannot be taken away by a license, etc..)

>
> Ultimately the foundation for licenses is copyright law, and other
> forms of IP law.  Copyright says we can't distribute anything we don't
> create except under very specific circumstances.  A license says that
> we can distribute stuff without fear of lawsuit under some conditions.

I don't think we are talking solely about redistribution rights but
also end user rights (EULA.) In this case their license (tries to)
cover both aspects.

>
> The yEd license says we can't distribute anything, so as far as I can
> see, we might as well not have any license at all.  We're not
> protected at all from a lawsuit, except to the degree that we don't do
> anything that we can be sued for (like distributing their software).
>
> But yes, from a technical standpoint you can only install a package if
> its license is contained in ACCEPT_LICENSE.  Whether this has any
> legal meaning is up to you or a court with jurisdiction to decide.

Its unclear if ACCEPT_LICENSE actually implies the user read and
accepted the EULA; but since the EULA is implicit w/installing the
software it is unclear to me (in my lay opinion) if this actually
matters.

>
> Rich
>