11–20 of 112 posts
> "By installing, copying or otherwise using ... you agree to be bound by ... " Why do people keep writing shit like this. Whoever wrote that EULA no doubt has an understanding of contract law and knows that you can't just unilaterally bind someone into an agreement like that. I know it's classic EULA nonsense, but it still bugs me how you can just write whatever and hope people naively take your word on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think their intention is to forbid "selling it as a paid service" but I agree - the merest whiff of legal uncertainty is enough for most companies just to give it a wide berth. At least AGPL etc are well understood. But bespoke licences - if I need to call a $500/hr lawyer to check if i can use your software then I'll probably just skip it.
> At least AGPL etc are well understood Is AGPL well understood? I thought people were still arguing whether you have to open source your whole company if you dare change a single line of AGPL code.
> "By installing, copying or otherwise using ... you agree to be bound by ... " Why do people keep writing shit like this. Whoever wrote that EULA no doubt has an understanding of contract law and knows that you can't just unilaterally bind someone into an agreement like that. I know it's classic EULA nonsense, but it still bugs me how you can just write whatever and hope people naively take your word on it.
It should be disbarrable to knowingly write unenforceable EULA's.
> "By installing, copying or otherwise using ... you agree to be bound by ... " Why do people keep writing shit like this. Whoever wrote that EULA no doubt has an understanding of contract law and knows that you can't just unilaterally bind someone into an agreement like that. I know it's classic EULA nonsense, but it still bugs me how you can just write whatever and hope people naively take your word on it.
I am very uneducated on this subject, what exactly is the problem with that sentence?
> "By installing, copying or otherwise using ... you agree to be bound by ... " Why do people keep writing shit like this. Whoever wrote that EULA no doubt has an understanding of contract law and knows that you can't just unilaterally bind someone into an agreement like that. I know it's classic EULA nonsense, but it still bugs me how you can just write whatever and hope people naively take your word on it.
I am very uneducated on this subject, what exactly is the problem with that sentence?
Do they own copyright to all of the code that allows them to relicense it like that?
> "By installing, copying or otherwise using ... you agree to be bound by ... " Why do people keep writing shit like this. Whoever wrote that EULA no doubt has an understanding of contract law and knows that you can't just unilaterally bind someone into an agreement like that. I know it's classic EULA nonsense, but it still bugs me how you can just write whatever and hope people naively take your word on it.
I am very uneducated on this subject, what exactly is the problem with that sentence?
Putting a file somewhere that states "you agree to X by using the software" without you signing anything isn't an enforceable contract. If they want you to agree to something it needs to be (e-)signed. Not just stating an action and claiming that by doing that you agree to a contract.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It should be disbarrable to knowingly write unenforceable EULA's.
The you will surely agree to be permanently barred from looking at, commenting, writing or otherwise contributing to code if you write a bug I deem severe enough?
Are they trying to push people towards NextCloud instead? I've been running an OwnCloud instance at work for some years and more recently a NextCloud instance at home. I was thinking that NextCloud was going to be the eventual upgrade path away from OwnCloud, but with their "Infinite Scale" reworking of it, I thought that maybe they were looking to take the lead again. I don't know if our usage is considered "commerc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think their intention is to forbid "selling it as a paid service" but I agree - the merest whiff of legal uncertainty is enough for most companies just to give it a wide berth. At least AGPL etc are well understood. But bespoke licences - if I need to call a $500/hr lawyer to check if i can use your software then I'll probably just skip it.
> At least AGPL etc are well understood Is AGPL well understood? I thought people were still arguing whether you have to open source your whole company if you dare change a single line of AGPL code.
Part of that argument is just a few companies' fear of contributing anything back, not that the license is so wide.