3 ms·
It seems most likely the author's intent was to limit his own liability by including a vague TOS. What makes more sense is to provide the software strictly "AS-
by jamesyeldritch 4y ago
It seems most likely the author's intent was to limit his own liability by including a vague TOS. What makes more sense is to provide the software strictly "AS-IS", without any guarantees, liabilities, warranty, or implied use-case. Y'know, like many FOSS licenses (GPL/BSD/MIT/etc). So, the BSD license used for the app itself actually had the author covered.
- benatkin 4y agoYeah, I'm not sure why there's an issue. It's just a reminder that F-Droid still has to make subjective decisions. There doesn't seem to be anything in the repository that would make me think the Terms of Service in the notice are attached to the license on the Source Code. Anyone who doesn't want it or wants to provide it to other people who don't want it could fork it and make a build without the notice, or with their own notice.
- jamesyeldritch 4y agoThe issue is that the TOS has ridiculous, absurd requirements while granting the author of the software no actual, real-world benefit. And that the software can no longer be considered FOSS when it easily could have been. It's like writing a TOS that states: "Thou shall only use this software in accordance with the seven heavenly virtues".