4 ms·
Relevant quoted text from the article: > B. Content Restrictions. In addition to the restrictions set forth in these Additional Product Terms, the General Term
by AlphaWeaver 7y ago
Relevant quoted text from the article:
> B. Content Restrictions. In addition to the restrictions set forth in these Additional Product Terms, the General Terms and Payment Terms, you will not: [...]
> 15. use, under any circumstance, any open source software subject to the GNU Affero General Public License v.3, or greater;
- d33 7y agoHow's that even legal or verifiable?
- the_mitsuhiko 7y agoWhy would it not be legal? Verifiable does not play a role. You sign a contract that you won’t do it.
- inflatableDodo 7y agoNot all contracts are valid.
- michaelhoffman 7y agoThis is not an answer. Invalid contracts are usually invalid for a specific reason.
- inflatableDodo 7y agoI really was only answering the bit stating; >"You sign a contract that you won’t do it." As that is not the be all and end all of contracts.
- CydeWeys 7y agoYeah but why in particular wouldn't this one be? There's no reason you couldn't have it be a condition of a contract that software licensed under some particular license isn't allowed. Choice of software license isn't a protected class or anything like that.
- anticensor 7y agoDoctrine of equality does not apply to private trade of products and services. This is not a public procurement announcement and they can disallow particular products to be used in their premises.
- chronogram 7y agoCan you explain the illegality to me? I fail to see it.
- aerojoe23 7y agoI don't use square so I haven't read the full terms, but I think it's important that B 15 is under 3. Online Store I. eCommerce Terms So I think these restrictions only apply to websites they designed or host. I think it would be fine to distribute software under the AGPL and use square for the payment. Or run AGPL software on your own ecom site and use them as the payment provider. Does this sound right? And if so, I guess they wouldn't want to have to redistribute the modified versions of software?
- anoncake 7y agoWhat about: - AGPL v2? it says: > This is version 2 of the Affero General Public License. It gives each licensee permission to distribute the Program or a work based on the Program (as defined in version 1 of the Affero GPL) under the GNU Affero General Public License, version 3 or any later version. - Dually licensed software? Does this prohibit software licensed under BSD and AGPL? Granted, the only reason to do that is to troll Square.
- robocat 7y agoI had the same thought. The clause is (which I just copied from original): "15. use, under any circumstance, any open source software subject to the GNU Affero General Public License v.3, or greater;" Which perhaps could be interpreted as version 0.3 or later?
- anoncake 7y agoI think even the most literal-minded judge can parse "v.3" despite the incorrect punctuation.