4 ms·
Here is the TOS: https://github.com/deckerst/aves/blob/main/assets/terms.md https://github.com/deckerst/aves/blob/main/assets/terms.md
by nix0n 4y ago
Here is the TOS: https://github.com/deckerst/aves/blob/main/assets/terms.md https://github.com/deckerst/aves/blob/main/assets/terms.md
- vinaypai 4y agoIt does sound pretty problematic from a FOSS point of view. > You must use the app for legal, authorized and acceptable purposes. In particular the "authorized" and "acceptable" part. Authorized by whom? Acceptable to whom?
- entropicdrifter 4y agoIANAL but the fact that those are that open to interpretation says to me that they're probably legally unenforceable.
- bityard 4y agoMy guess is that the f-froid maintainers (or their users) don't want the possibility of having to pay to defend that argument in court.
- Macha 4y agoPerhaps after the OGL stunt by wizards of the coast, the issue reporter was also feeling less charitable about vague uses of authorized, also
- luckylion 4y agoWhat I find more interesting: they're not saying you must not use it for illegal, unauthorized or unacceptable purposes. Do something legal, authorized and acceptable and you've fulfilled that requirement. Then do whatever you want with it.
- renewiltord 4y agoHaha, that's funny. Having installed it and accepted the ToS, you have violated them if you do not then use the app for something legal, authorized, and acceptable. If you hit Accept but close the app before the next screen that means you are a violator. I like your reading of it.
- vinaypai 4y agoHaha yeah. Pretty typical of non-lawyers trying to sound officious and legalistic. Weird that he's choosing this to pick a fight over.
- entropicdrifter 4y agoThose terms are so ridiculously loose. It basically looks like this is an "it's not my fault if people use this app for illegal stuff" ass-covering maneuver by the dev. This is grounds for removal? Really?
- agilob 4y agoWell, yes.. JSON parsing library was not allowed to be used for evil... So it wasn't included in Debian for years https://dzone.com//articles/jsonorg-license-literally-says https://dzone.com//articles/jsonorg-license-literally-says
- kps 4y agoIBM requested, and received, permission to use it for evil. https://youtu.be/-C-JoyNuQJs?t=2473 https://youtu.be/-C-JoyNuQJs?t=2473
- entropicdrifter 4y agoThis is incredible
- capableweb 4y agoFDroid is for FOSS, restricting usage is not FOSS. It's pretty simple.
- crote 4y agoYes, really. The terms are so loose they are unusable, which is a large part of the problem. Whether something is "open source" is usually determined by The Open Source Definition, maintained by the Open Source Initiative. In this case, the problematic part would be: "6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research." In practice this means clauses like "you cannot use this software for evil" or "you cannot use this software for illegal stuff" mean it is no longer open source. We've seen this before with The JSON License and many others, and the argument is well-settled.