OwnCloud Infinite Scale added EULA that prohibits commercial use [pdf]

Post by jxdxbx » Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 12:20 PM UTC

chaosite wrote: post #49

jxdxbx wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A “license” is legal permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal, such as copy software (assuming there’s no fair use etc), or even attend a concert. Licenses are often granted as part of contracts, but need not be. Unilateral license conditions are not binding contacts, but not following them can still be unlawful. If a movie theater breaks a license term by for example playing a movie publicly withou…

Unless that movie theater entered into a contract with a distributor, right?

Post by paulnpace » Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 12:41 PM UTC

jxdxbx wrote: post #32

Y_Y wrote: post #2

> "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.

A “license” is legal permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal, such as copy software (assuming there’s no fair use etc), or even attend a concert. Licenses are often granted as part of contracts, but need not be. Unilateral license conditions are not binding contacts, but not following them can still be unlawful. If a movie theater breaks a license term by for example playing a movie publicly withou…

Post by RobotToaster » Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 1:08 PM UTC

2Gkashmiri wrote: post #51

SamuelAdams wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a while I thought it was AGPL, but after reading it it looks like there are no provisions against using the code for commercial purposes, only that if source code is used, the modified source code must also be made available to the public.

I was recently involved in a decison where a company was thinking of reusing code of agpl into proprietary software. The end result was "if you are using the agpl code as an api enfpoint or you are just reusing the code without any modifications, you don't have to share your entire code to customers because if vitality. Vitality would come up if you modify the code. You can just show you are using agpl code in a lice…

Post by 2Gkashmiri » Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 1:43 PM UTC

RobotToaster wrote: post #56

2Gkashmiri wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was recently involved in a decison where a company was thinking of reusing code of agpl into proprietary software. The end result was "if you are using the agpl code as an api enfpoint or you are just reusing the code without any modifications, you don't have to share your entire code to customers because if vitality. Vitality would come up if you modify the code. You can just show you are using agpl code in a lice…

My understanding is the problem with the SSPL is the entire stack has to be released under the SSPL, which makes it incompatible with most other open source software, including the linux kernel.

Post by plagiarist » Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 2:02 PM UTC

zvr wrote: post #55

SamuelAdams wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a while I thought it was AGPL, but after reading it it looks like there are no provisions against using the code for commercial purposes, only that if source code is used, the modified source code must also be made available to the public.

And the emphasis on modified source code. If you use some AGPL-licensed software without modifications, there are no obligations to make anything available (unless you are also distributing).