Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple to kill Epic’s accounts on Friday the 28th

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

991–996 of 996 posts

Re: Apple to kill Epic’s accounts on Friday the 28th

#991

Post by kazinator »

jordigh wrote: post #938
marcan_42 wrote: post #934

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright law doesn't say anything about users of software, it talks about copying , performing (no, you are not "performing" nginx for your remote users, that's not how it works), etc. In fact, courts have repeatedly ruled that the output of software (i.e. the packets nginx sends over the network, but which aren't its own code) is not covered by the software's copyright itself. If I lend you my phone, in the absence…

You seem to have trouble understanding that copyright is irrelevant to determining who the users of the software are. The users are the ones using the software. That there is a network between them and the software they're using is irrelevant. Does it make sense now?

Copyright is irrelevant also because you are not redistributing the program to those users (and possibly not at all).

Yet, the copyright law is what the AGPL is trying to wield as its basis.

It does not seem valid. Has anyone tested it in court?

I don't think that copyright can assert use restrictions. You cannot say that someone is not authorized to have a copy of something if they do not use it in such and such a way.

It's exactly like a "license" written in the flap of a book which says that you must read only the even-numbered pages. If you read any odd-numbered page, then you are breaching the license under which you're permitted to have a copy, and must destroy the book.

I would cheerfully deploy a modified AGPL program and not reveal the code to anyone. Nothing would happen at all.

I'm surprised Google are so allergic to the AGPL. If it came down to it, they could crush this bullshit in court like swatting a mosquito.

Re: Apple to kill Epic’s accounts on Friday the 28th

#992

Post by kazinator »

marcan_42 wrote: post #975
kazinator wrote: post #945

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This isn't taking any rights away from you -- indeed, the AGPL is only granting you rights. Note that a shrink-wrap end-user license agreement from Adobe also doesn't take away your rights; it only grants you rights. At least, according to copyright rhetoric.

This is not correct. Those agreements are based on the idea that your license to use the copyrighted software is predicated on accepting a large number of conditions outside of copyright. Merely receiving a license-free piece of software (i.e. "all rights reserved") with no strings attached gives you a certain set of default rights (i.e. anything not in violation of copyright), such as to run it for any purpose. EULA…

The doctrine under copyright law is that you have no right to have a copy of a work without the copyright holder's permission. From that basis, various forms of asshole on the face of this Earth, and their lawyers, have come up with various licenses that inject all sorts of behavioral conditions, far outside of the scope of copyright law, on the granting of a permission for you to have a copy. The idea is to turn the non-compliance with those conditions into copyright infringment. "Oh, you're violating clause 37? And still have a copy of the work? That's not allowed! You must comply, or else destroy the copy!"

Re: Apple to kill Epic’s accounts on Friday the 28th

#993

Post by kelnos »

fermienrico wrote: post #681
kelnos wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fine, but you're telling everyone else that, because you personally are not willing to take responsibility for the security of your devices, it's ok for a corporation to dictate that no one is. This doesn't need to be an either/or situation. You can outsource your security and privacy decisions to Apple while simultaneously allowing others to take full control of their devices.

No, that's not a fair take. I am saying that everyone is probably more akin to not knowing a darn thing about security (outside of HN caccoon) than people who are commenting here to setup their own security infrastructure. Given the conditions of how ignorant large percentage (~ 99.999%) of the Apple customers are, I would trust Apple more than any other party to keep them and myself safe. Can you imagine third parti…

I think maybe you're missing the point? I don't even disagree with what you're saying, but we can have it both ways: the alleged 99.999% (I suspect you're exaggerating) can have by-default strict security with no apps allowed unless installed through Apple's App Store, and the rest could do whatever they want.

Re: Apple to kill Epic’s accounts on Friday the 28th

#994

Post by greggyb »

romanoderoma wrote: post #903
zip1234 wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would Apple's policies be illegal? Epic entered a contractual agreement with Apple and then knowingly and intentionally broke it in order to benefit themselves.

If we sign an agreement where in exchange for my services you have to give me your first daughter, you can break the contract and refuse to pay, even if you signed it, because it's illegal.

In legal terms, a contract is an enforceable agreement; by definition if it is illegal or void or unenforceable, it is not a contract. Breach is a thing you do to a contract. Therefore you can't breach an illegal contract - you never had a contract.

Re: Apple to kill Epic’s accounts on Friday the 28th

#995

Post by m4rtink »

boring_twenties wrote: post #980
m4rtink wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A simple litmus test: Is F-Droid in Google Play ? It is not.

Not only is it not in Google Play, but it can't update apps in the background the way Google can. For every update, times every app you have to click through a stupid screen "Are you sure you want to install this update? It requires no special permissions."

Ironically this onewould be super helful for the recent Firefox update disaster where they switched from the bit outdated Fennec to the new and faster but totally unfinishec Fenix.

With auto updates this was quite a wakeup call...

Another nice thing is F-Droid listing multiple versions, another thing sorely lacking in Google Play.

Re: Apple to kill Epic’s accounts on Friday the 28th

#996

Post by ghostpepper »

Razengan wrote: post #336
ghostpepper wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a valid question - if the answer is a fraction of what Apple charges then it strengthens the case against Apple.

> if the answer is a fraction of what Apple charges then it strengthens the case against Apple. The answer is the same. What now? Will you put down the pitchforks?

My comment was actually intended to play a bit of devil's advocate - I'm not convinced that Apple has a monopoly, and I kind of don't mind living in the walled garden.
Post reply on HN