3 ms·
Those 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
by entropicdrifter 4y ago
Those 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.
- Macha 4y agoWhat is authorized? Authorized by who? Can they deauthorize? Change the criteria for authorization?