[gentoo-dev] Re: spotify license

[Matthew Thode]

On 10/29/2012 03:32 PM, Matija Šuklje wrote:
> On Ponedeljek 29. of October 2012 15.52.20 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Matthew Thode wrote:
>>> It's looking hard to be able to add the spotify ebuild to tree because
>>> of licensing concerns.
>>>
>>> http://www.spotify.com/us/legal/end-user-agreement/
>>
>> This concerns not so much the client software, but their "service" and
>> the contents provided through it.
>
> Well, the “Spotify Software” is included at least it §4 and also in general
> included in the “service” term. The license agreement is lacking though.
>
> In any case Gentoo can’t be the 3rd party here and therefore not redistribute
> it.
>
>>> 10:02 <  prometheanfire > do you have a plaintext version? I can copy
>>> the text, but just thought I'd ask :D
>>> 10:02 <     dan^spotify > No, and copy+pasting it into a text file isn't
>>> something we really want you to to do, since it changes from time-to-time
>>> 10:04 <  prometheanfire > ok, I'll see what the proper course of action
>>> is, I think you have us accept the license on first start right?
>>> 10:04 <     dan^spotify > Correct
>>> 10:04 <     dan^spotify > Well, first login
>>> 10:05 <  prometheanfire > just as good probably
>>> 10:05 <     dan^spotify > If you've already accepted the most up-to-date
>>> license on another machine, you won't be prompted again
>>>
>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=373093
>>>
>>> They want it to be accepted through the app.  Is there a way this is
>>> compatible with Gentoo?
>>
>> We need a plaintext license file for the client that we put in
>> ${PORTDIR}licenses/, so users can look at it before they install the
>> package.
>
> Yup.
>
> They probably deem §§ 3 and 4 to be the license, but it’s quite lacking IMHO.
> So since full copyright is default, this means that we’re not allowed to
> redistribute it. RESTRICT="mirror" we have to do here.
>
> As a sub-optimal solution, Rich’s idea to create a Spotify license and point
> the users to the actual EULA.
>
> But unless they clarify the software license for their *client*, I’d rather we
> don’t include it. Too messy.
>
>> Maybe it would make more sense to add one of the free alternatives?
>>
>>    http://despotify.se/
>>    https://gitorious.org/libopenspotify
>>
>> media-sound/despotify is already in Sunrise, bug 307795.
>
> Seems a better idea IMHO.
>
>
> cheers,
> Matija
>
> P.S. As Rich mentioned, the difference between a (real) license and “license
> agreement” is that a license grants you more rights then you get by law and
> therefore you don’t have to agree to it, since your rights are not diminished;
> a so called license agreement (EULA, ToS, whatever_agreement) has nothing to
> do with a (real) license apart from the falsely borrowed name and you have to
> agree with it, since your statutory rights are diminished/voided.
>

Got confirmation via irc that the license is for the client as well,
dunno if that's good enough...

-- 
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)