12 ms·

The license prohibits all kinds of things so I am not comfortable using it: https://fork.dev/license https://fork.dev/license Specifically, it says: * "You wi

The license prohibits all kinds of things so I am not comfortable using it: https://fork.dev/license https://fork.dev/license Specifically, it says: * "You will not use this Software to engage in or allow others to engage in any illegal activity.": Which jurisdiction? how far do I have to go to prevent illegal activity? * "You will not engage in using this Software that will interfere with or damage the operation of the services of any third parties[...]" How is this defined? How quickly can I push the "git pull" button before I violate this term? * "You will not use this Software to engage in any activity that will violate the rights of third parties, including, without limitation, [...]" again, which jurisdiction?

hnarn 7y ago
What a silly license. Why do people insist on rolling their own? It's quite amazing to me, especially when it comes to things like cryptography and legal texts. Surely any lawyer could point at these phrases and say what you're saying now -- how do you define this? Sure, you could argue that keeping it vague is a way to protect the authors, but I'd argue that a competent lawyer would write it in a less vague way, to protect the authors even more -- if it was necessary. Is it? I doubt it, considering the type of software we see under insanely brief licenses like the MIT.
- nerdponx 7y ago
  The MIT license is extremely permissive. It's a stupid measuring post for comparison, because it basically doesn't say anything at all. Yes, they could have consulted with and paid a lawyer to tighten up the wording. But unless you either own a company, or intend to use this in consulting work, I don't think this license should bother you at all. The intent and general meaning are pretty clear, even if you could argue over the definition of one word or another.
mikekchar 7y ago
I can answer one of your questions: "This agreement shall be governed by the laws of Czeck Republic. If any portion of this Agreement is deemed unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, it shall not affect the forcibility of the other portions of this Agreement." Though, this license is pretty much radioactive for me: "You will not, and will not permit others to reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, derive the source code of, modify, or create derivative works from this Software..." Fair enough if you want to use whatever license you want to use, but definitely a "no thanks" from me...
- intea 7y ago
  A closed source git client, that's almost an oxymoron.
  - wodenokoto 7y ago
    No it isn't. Git kraken, sublime merge, sourcetree. It is pretty common among the most famous ones, just look at the list on wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Git_GUIs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Git_GUIs
- gray_-_wolf 7y ago
  > laws of Czeck Republic lol they even have the country spelled wrong...
  - hnarn 7y ago
    Amazing. I wouldn't trust this company as far as I can throw them, this contract is a joke.
  - vintagedave 7y ago
    > “Czeck” is one of several widespread misspellings." -- https://www.quora.com/Is-it-Czech-or-Czeck https://www.quora.com/Is-it-Czech-or-Czeck This comment isn't worth of HN, (critical, "lol", "...".) Instead, why not focus on something positive?
- p_l 7y ago
  I really like those "no reversing" clauses. Because they are worth less than the bits used to write them in Poland - only the "distribute derivative works" would be enforceable because that would be blatant copyright violation
krautsourced 7y ago
Despite this and as someone doing only "vanilla" non-controversial stuff in (afaik) any jurisdiction I can at the very least say that as a git gui client, it works really well. So there's that.
giancarlostoro 7y ago
Worse yet these are not concrete points. Laws change. Things happen. Worse yet you need a lawyer from the appropriate jurisdictions just to figure out if you are lawfully using the software? At which point if you ignore the license now you are a pirate of sorts.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  That applies to any license, doesn't it? Congress could abolish the public domain or ban stuff like the GPL.
  - giancarlostoro 7y ago
    The GPL is much more specific in its terms. I imagine people who break laws wont care about this software license anyway. You cant stop criminals by giving them more rules / laws to follow. Just wont ever happen.
  - gregmac 7y ago
    IANAL, but I'm fairly sure banning "stuff like the GPL" would mean banning every EULA and software license, as that's really all the GPL is. Eben Moglen (Free Software Foundation) sums up the differences: > But most proprietary software companies want more power than copyright alone gives them. These companies say their software is “licensed” to consumers, but the license contains obligations that copyright law knows nothing about. Software you're not allowed to understand, for example, often requires you to agree not to decompile it. Copyright law doesn't prohibit decompilation, the prohibition is just a contract term you agree to as a condition of getting the software when you buy the product under shrink wrap in a store, or accept a “clickwrap license” on line. [..] > The GPL, on the other hand, subtracts from copyright rather than adding to it. [..] Copyright grants publishers power to forbid users to exercise rights to copy, modify, and distribute that we believe all users should have; the GPL thus relaxes almost all the restrictions of the copyright system. The only thing we absolutely require is that anyone distributing GPL'd works or works made from GPL'd works distribute in turn under GPL. [..] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.en.html
eevilspock 7y ago
Jurisdiction is right there on the bottom: Governing Law This agreement shall be governed by the laws of Czeck Republic. If any portion of this Agreement is deemed unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, it shall not affect the forcibility of the other portions of this Agreement. It is clear that those clauses are ONLY trying to protect them, the authors, from liability for the actions of others using their software. Perfectly reasonable. It is clearly not written by a lawyer (IANAL), it may not be legally bullet proof, but this is freeware by a couple of people in their spare time. FOR FREE.
hombre_fatal 7y ago
I don't really understand the upside for them to include such toothless yet threatening clauses. It makes them seem a bit juvenile. Like when we had to come up with laws for our make-believe countries for a class project in middle school and we tried to cover our bases with rules like "if you're a bad person doing all bad stuff, you're not allowed to!"
- nerdponx 7y ago
  It's pretty clear that those terms are all defined in the context of whatever they might mean under Czech law, which I am not familiar with. Also, those quotes are taken out of context for dramatic effect: You will not engage in using this Software that will interfere with or damage the operation of the services of any third parties by overburdening/disabling network resources through automated queries, excessive usage or similar conduct. You will not use this Software to engage in any activity that will violate the rights of third parties, including, without limitation, through the use, public display, public performance, reproduction, distribution, or modification of communications or materials that infringe copyrights, trademarks, publicity rights, privacy rights, other proprietary rights, or rights against defamation of third parties. GP is really trying hard to smear this author for some reason, but you read the actual license you'll see that their criticism is based on fiction.
  - MarkSweep 7y ago
    Whoops, that was pretty silly of me to miss the Czech. However I stand by my criticism that it is not possible to know if you are violating the license or not. I don’t want to have to learn and follow Czech law to use a git client. Why does this agreement cover how I use third party services and who defines what qualifies as interfering? How far does my obligation to not allow others to reverse engineer the application go? What rights might third parties have under Czech law that I have to worry about while using the software? Compare Microsoft Windows’s license: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms/Retail/Windows/10/Useterms_Retail_Windows_10_English.htm https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms/Retail/Windows/10/U... It also says you can’t reverse engineer, but it does not obligate you to stop others. It’s section about online service is a little bit more explicit about what is not allowed. There are no other requirements to follow every law of a particular jurisdiction while using the software.
nerdponx 7y ago
Either quotes have been deliberately taken out of context, or the author has updated the license. It now reads: By using this Software or storing this program or parts of it on a computer hard drive (or other media), you are agreeing to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement. You represent and warrant that you will not violate any of the requirements of this Agreement and further represent and warrant that: You will not, and will not permit others to: 1) reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, derive the source code of, modify, or create derivative works from this Software, or 2) copy, distribute, publicly display, or publicly perform content contained in this Software other than as expressly authorized by this Agreement. You will not use this Software to engage in or allow others to engage in any illegal activity.^ You will not engage in using this Software that will interfere with or damage the operation of the services of any third parties by overburdening/disabling network resources through automated queries, excessive usage or similar conduct.* You will not sell this Software or charge others for use of it (either for profit or merely to recover your media and distribution costs) whether as a stand-alone product, or as part of a compilation or anthology, without explicit prior written permission. You will not use this Software to engage in any activity that will violate the rights of third parties, including, without limitation, through the use, public display, public performance, reproduction, distribution, or modification of communications or materials that infringe copyrights, trademarks, publicity rights, privacy rights, other proprietary rights, or rights against defamation of third parties. You may not claim any sponsorship by, endorsement by, or affiliation with me.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  Does that seem like a reasonable license to you? Admittedly, it doesn't matter, because these authors don't have the resources to hire lawyers from abroad, but all this stuff about "illegal activity"? This is a git client. It gives us no functionality that does not already exist in git. What am I going to do, rob a convenience store with it? Why would the author care if I did? Why are the terms more onerous than those of git itself?
  - vintagedave 7y ago
    Even in the US, it's common to have clauses about specific illegal activity, such as breaking embargoes or similar. For example, you might be banned from using the software in, or cooperating with someone located in, Iran. You could do both of those with a git client. This is more generally phrased than the very lawyer-written EULAs you generally find, but it's not unreasonable or unprecedented.

hnarn 7y ago

What a silly license. Why do people insist on rolling their own? It's quite amazing to me, especially when it comes to things like cryptography and legal texts. Surely any lawyer could point at these phrases and say what you're saying now -- how do you define this? Sure, you could argue that keeping it vague is a way to protect the authors, but I'd argue that a competent lawyer would write it in a less vague way, to protect the authors even more -- if it was necessary. Is it? I doubt it, considering the type of software we see under insanely brief licenses like the MIT.

nerdponx 7y ago
The MIT license is extremely permissive. It's a stupid measuring post for comparison, because it basically doesn't say anything at all. Yes, they could have consulted with and paid a lawyer to tighten up the wording. But unless you either own a company, or intend to use this in consulting work, I don't think this license should bother you at all. The intent and general meaning are pretty clear, even if you could argue over the definition of one word or another.

mikekchar 7y ago

I can answer one of your questions: "This agreement shall be governed by the laws of Czeck Republic. If any portion of this Agreement is deemed unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, it shall not affect the forcibility of the other portions of this Agreement." Though, this license is pretty much radioactive for me: "You will not, and will not permit others to reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, derive the source code of, modify, or create derivative works from this Software..." Fair enough if you want to use whatever license you want to use, but definitely a "no thanks" from me...

intea 7y ago
A closed source git client, that's almost an oxymoron.
- wodenokoto 7y ago
  No it isn't. Git kraken, sublime merge, sourcetree. It is pretty common among the most famous ones, just look at the list on wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Git_GUIs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Git_GUIs
gray_-_wolf 7y ago
> laws of Czeck Republic lol they even have the country spelled wrong...
- hnarn 7y ago
  Amazing. I wouldn't trust this company as far as I can throw them, this contract is a joke.
- vintagedave 7y ago
  > “Czeck” is one of several widespread misspellings." -- https://www.quora.com/Is-it-Czech-or-Czeck https://www.quora.com/Is-it-Czech-or-Czeck This comment isn't worth of HN, (critical, "lol", "...".) Instead, why not focus on something positive?
p_l 7y ago
I really like those "no reversing" clauses. Because they are worth less than the bits used to write them in Poland - only the "distribute derivative works" would be enforceable because that would be blatant copyright violation

krautsourced 7y ago

Despite this and as someone doing only "vanilla" non-controversial stuff in (afaik) any jurisdiction I can at the very least say that as a git gui client, it works really well. So there's that.

giancarlostoro 7y ago

Worse yet these are not concrete points. Laws change. Things happen. Worse yet you need a lawyer from the appropriate jurisdictions just to figure out if you are lawfully using the software? At which point if you ignore the license now you are a pirate of sorts.

ceejayoz 7y ago
That applies to any license, doesn't it? Congress could abolish the public domain or ban stuff like the GPL.
- giancarlostoro 7y ago
  The GPL is much more specific in its terms. I imagine people who break laws wont care about this software license anyway. You cant stop criminals by giving them more rules / laws to follow. Just wont ever happen.
- gregmac 7y ago
  IANAL, but I'm fairly sure banning "stuff like the GPL" would mean banning every EULA and software license, as that's really all the GPL is. Eben Moglen (Free Software Foundation) sums up the differences: > But most proprietary software companies want more power than copyright alone gives them. These companies say their software is “licensed” to consumers, but the license contains obligations that copyright law knows nothing about. Software you're not allowed to understand, for example, often requires you to agree not to decompile it. Copyright law doesn't prohibit decompilation, the prohibition is just a contract term you agree to as a condition of getting the software when you buy the product under shrink wrap in a store, or accept a “clickwrap license” on line. [..] > The GPL, on the other hand, subtracts from copyright rather than adding to it. [..] Copyright grants publishers power to forbid users to exercise rights to copy, modify, and distribute that we believe all users should have; the GPL thus relaxes almost all the restrictions of the copyright system. The only thing we absolutely require is that anyone distributing GPL'd works or works made from GPL'd works distribute in turn under GPL. [..] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.en.html

eevilspock 7y ago

Jurisdiction is right there on the bottom: Governing Law This agreement shall be governed by the laws of Czeck Republic. If any portion of this Agreement is deemed unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, it shall not affect the forcibility of the other portions of this Agreement. It is clear that those clauses are ONLY trying to protect them, the authors, from liability for the actions of others using their software. Perfectly reasonable. It is clearly not written by a lawyer (IANAL), it may not be legally bullet proof, but this is freeware by a couple of people in their spare time. FOR FREE.

hombre_fatal 7y ago

I don't really understand the upside for them to include such toothless yet threatening clauses. It makes them seem a bit juvenile. Like when we had to come up with laws for our make-believe countries for a class project in middle school and we tried to cover our bases with rules like "if you're a bad person doing all bad stuff, you're not allowed to!"

nerdponx 7y ago
It's pretty clear that those terms are all defined in the context of whatever they might mean under Czech law, which I am not familiar with. Also, those quotes are taken out of context for dramatic effect: You will not engage in using this Software that will interfere with or damage the operation of the services of any third parties by overburdening/disabling network resources through automated queries, excessive usage or similar conduct. You will not use this Software to engage in any activity that will violate the rights of third parties, including, without limitation, through the use, public display, public performance, reproduction, distribution, or modification of communications or materials that infringe copyrights, trademarks, publicity rights, privacy rights, other proprietary rights, or rights against defamation of third parties. GP is really trying hard to smear this author for some reason, but you read the actual license you'll see that their criticism is based on fiction.
- MarkSweep 7y ago
  Whoops, that was pretty silly of me to miss the Czech. However I stand by my criticism that it is not possible to know if you are violating the license or not. I don’t want to have to learn and follow Czech law to use a git client. Why does this agreement cover how I use third party services and who defines what qualifies as interfering? How far does my obligation to not allow others to reverse engineer the application go? What rights might third parties have under Czech law that I have to worry about while using the software? Compare Microsoft Windows’s license: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms/Retail/Windows/10/Useterms_Retail_Windows_10_English.htm https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms/Retail/Windows/10/U... It also says you can’t reverse engineer, but it does not obligate you to stop others. It’s section about online service is a little bit more explicit about what is not allowed. There are no other requirements to follow every law of a particular jurisdiction while using the software.

nerdponx 7y ago

Either quotes have been deliberately taken out of context, or the author has updated the license. It now reads: By using this Software or storing this program or parts of it on a computer hard drive (or other media), you are agreeing to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement. You represent and warrant that you will not violate any of the requirements of this Agreement and further represent and warrant that: You will not, and will not permit others to: 1) reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, derive the source code of, modify, or create derivative works from this Software, or 2) copy, distribute, publicly display, or publicly perform content contained in this Software other than as expressly authorized by this Agreement. You will not use this Software to engage in or allow others to engage in any illegal activity.^ You will not engage in using this Software that will interfere with or damage the operation of the services of any third parties by overburdening/disabling network resources through automated queries, excessive usage or similar conduct.* You will not sell this Software or charge others for use of it (either for profit or merely to recover your media and distribution costs) whether as a stand-alone product, or as part of a compilation or anthology, without explicit prior written permission. You will not use this Software to engage in any activity that will violate the rights of third parties, including, without limitation, through the use, public display, public performance, reproduction, distribution, or modification of communications or materials that infringe copyrights, trademarks, publicity rights, privacy rights, other proprietary rights, or rights against defamation of third parties. You may not claim any sponsorship by, endorsement by, or affiliation with me.

jessaustin 7y ago
Does that seem like a reasonable license to you? Admittedly, it doesn't matter, because these authors don't have the resources to hire lawyers from abroad, but all this stuff about "illegal activity"? This is a git client. It gives us no functionality that does not already exist in git. What am I going to do, rob a convenience store with it? Why would the author care if I did? Why are the terms more onerous than those of git itself?
- vintagedave 7y ago
  Even in the US, it's common to have clauses about specific illegal activity, such as breaking embargoes or similar. For example, you might be banned from using the software in, or cooperating with someone located in, Iran. You could do both of those with a git client. This is more generally phrased than the very lawyer-written EULAs you generally find, but it's not unreasonable or unprecedented.