5 ms·

This is Jay Kreps, I'm the CEO of Confluent. The license is actually not a EULA, that is a misunderstanding. We have added this item to our FAQ: https://www.con

This is Jay Kreps, I'm the CEO of Confluent. The license is actually not a EULA, that is a misunderstanding. We have added this item to our FAQ: https://www.confluent.io/confluent-community-license-faq https://www.confluent.io/confluent-community-license-faq

DannyBee 8y ago
I don't think you should give this the short shrift you are - in particular, right to use vs other rights is not the defining characteristic of EULA's. There are EULA's for redistributable components and have been for a very long time (for example, the MSVC runtime libraries). The most defining characteristic of a EULA is usually the "licensed but not sold" part. I suspect adding this particular entry does more harm than good for you - it makes you look like you ignoring the meaningful argument here. Personally, I'd remove it until you have some reasonable response.
- kemitchell 8y ago
  EULA has no specific meaning in industry. It's been used for so many different kinds of terms, in so many different contexts, that it's lost nearly all meaning. Like "OEM". > The most defining characteristic of a EULA is usually the "licensed but not sold" part. Public licenses for software, say MIT or BSD, also arguably license, rather than sell. But they still include disclaimers of warranties, like merchantability and fitness for particular purpose, implied by the Uniform Commercial Code, which governs contracts. Huh? At least under the US law I've seen, from Jacobsen to Hancom, there's no hard, meaningful legal distinction between contract and license, as some activists theorized early on. Even when those activists drafted licenses, like the GPLs, that explicitly claimed to be licenses and not contracts, they still included contract-like disclaimers and limits on liability. Realistically, license and contract rules coexist and overlap. How do we interpret license terms? By rules of contract construction. What claims do plaintiffs make for violations? Copyright infringement and breach of contract. What makes a license irrevocable without consideration? Promissory estoppel, a contract doctrine.
bcantrill 8y ago
But do you view the Confluent Community License as a contract? And do I own the copy (not the copyright!) of the software that I git clone'd, modified and built?
cbkeller 8y ago
Do you care to support that assertion? It reads very much like one. > BY INSTALLING, DOWNLOADING, ACCESSING, USING OR DISTRIBUTING ANY OF THE SOFTWARE, YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS, YOU MUST NOT USE THE SOFTWARE. IF YOU ARE RECEIVING THE SOFTWARE ON BEHALF OF A LEGAL ENTITY, YOU REPRESENT AND WARRANT THAT YOU HAVE THE ACTUAL AUTHORITY TO AGREE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF SUCH ENTITY. “Licensee” means you, an individual, or the entity on whose behalf you are receiving the Software. "... you agree to the terms and conditions of this agreement" seems like a dead giveaway for an EULA -- specifically, an attempt to bind the licensee by contract law in addition to copyright law.
- bloak 8y ago
  By reading this sentence you agree to pay me £100. I'm sure that's legally valid. Perhaps it is in the USA.
  - majewsky 8y ago
    Things like "By doing X you agree to Y" are actually legally valid in some circumstances. The legal term is "implied-in-fact contracts": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract For example, that's why a railway operator (a private company) can fine you when you cannot present a valid ticket. When you get on the train, this action creates a transportation contract between you and the railway operator.
    - belorn 8y ago
      Contract law is a large and complex area of legal code, but the key term that get repeated is the "meeting of minds" which is the core disagreement between those that find EULA valid and those that find them invalid. Classical contract law holds that you can not make contract binding if one party has not read it or do not understand if for one reason or an other. This is used as the example when someone talk about switching a contract under the table, using microscopic hidden text, or other contract schemes. By using excessive length, language, complexity, and a position of power (you may not use the property you bought unless you agree to this additional arbitrarily terms) many see it as identical to switching the contract under table. There is also some additional fun extras in contract law, like the concept of fair terms. This very old idea is that a contract should be a balanced deal. Terms that unfairly give one party undue benefits can then be challenged as invalid.
webmaven 8y ago
Jay, your FAQ says “EULA only gives you the right to use; the Confluent Community License grants other rights as well.” This is factually untrue. Many EULAs grant additional rights, such as the right to make a backup copy of the software. In the case of Freeware (ah, halcyon days!) the EULA often allowed redistribution of copies.

DannyBee 8y ago

I don't think you should give this the short shrift you are - in particular, right to use vs other rights is not the defining characteristic of EULA's. There are EULA's for redistributable components and have been for a very long time (for example, the MSVC runtime libraries). The most defining characteristic of a EULA is usually the "licensed but not sold" part. I suspect adding this particular entry does more harm than good for you - it makes you look like you ignoring the meaningful argument here. Personally, I'd remove it until you have some reasonable response.

kemitchell 8y ago
EULA has no specific meaning in industry. It's been used for so many different kinds of terms, in so many different contexts, that it's lost nearly all meaning. Like "OEM". > The most defining characteristic of a EULA is usually the "licensed but not sold" part. Public licenses for software, say MIT or BSD, also arguably license, rather than sell. But they still include disclaimers of warranties, like merchantability and fitness for particular purpose, implied by the Uniform Commercial Code, which governs contracts. Huh? At least under the US law I've seen, from Jacobsen to Hancom, there's no hard, meaningful legal distinction between contract and license, as some activists theorized early on. Even when those activists drafted licenses, like the GPLs, that explicitly claimed to be licenses and not contracts, they still included contract-like disclaimers and limits on liability. Realistically, license and contract rules coexist and overlap. How do we interpret license terms? By rules of contract construction. What claims do plaintiffs make for violations? Copyright infringement and breach of contract. What makes a license irrevocable without consideration? Promissory estoppel, a contract doctrine.

bcantrill 8y ago

But do you view the Confluent Community License as a contract? And do I own the copy (not the copyright!) of the software that I git clone'd, modified and built?

cbkeller 8y ago

Do you care to support that assertion? It reads very much like one. > BY INSTALLING, DOWNLOADING, ACCESSING, USING OR DISTRIBUTING ANY OF THE SOFTWARE, YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS, YOU MUST NOT USE THE SOFTWARE. IF YOU ARE RECEIVING THE SOFTWARE ON BEHALF OF A LEGAL ENTITY, YOU REPRESENT AND WARRANT THAT YOU HAVE THE ACTUAL AUTHORITY TO AGREE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF SUCH ENTITY. “Licensee” means you, an individual, or the entity on whose behalf you are receiving the Software. "... you agree to the terms and conditions of this agreement" seems like a dead giveaway for an EULA -- specifically, an attempt to bind the licensee by contract law in addition to copyright law.

bloak 8y ago
By reading this sentence you agree to pay me £100. I'm sure that's legally valid. Perhaps it is in the USA.
- majewsky 8y ago
  Things like "By doing X you agree to Y" are actually legally valid in some circumstances. The legal term is "implied-in-fact contracts": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract For example, that's why a railway operator (a private company) can fine you when you cannot present a valid ticket. When you get on the train, this action creates a transportation contract between you and the railway operator.
  - belorn 8y ago
    Contract law is a large and complex area of legal code, but the key term that get repeated is the "meeting of minds" which is the core disagreement between those that find EULA valid and those that find them invalid. Classical contract law holds that you can not make contract binding if one party has not read it or do not understand if for one reason or an other. This is used as the example when someone talk about switching a contract under the table, using microscopic hidden text, or other contract schemes. By using excessive length, language, complexity, and a position of power (you may not use the property you bought unless you agree to this additional arbitrarily terms) many see it as identical to switching the contract under table. There is also some additional fun extras in contract law, like the concept of fair terms. This very old idea is that a contract should be a balanced deal. Terms that unfairly give one party undue benefits can then be challenged as invalid.

webmaven 8y ago

Jay, your FAQ says “EULA only gives you the right to use; the Confluent Community License grants other rights as well.” This is factually untrue. Many EULAs grant additional rights, such as the right to make a backup copy of the software. In the case of Freeware (ah, halcyon days!) the EULA often allowed redistribution of copies.