4 ms·
The most hilarious part: "Partner represents and warrants that it shall not introduce into WhatsApp’s Systems or Infrastructure, the Sublicensed Encryption Sof
by Pannoniae 3y ago
The most hilarious part:
"Partner represents and warrants that it shall not introduce into WhatsApp’s Systems or Infrastructure, the
Sublicensed Encryption Software, or otherwise make accessible to WhatsApp any viruses or any software
licensed under the General Public Licence or any similar licence (e.g. GNU Affero General Public License
(AGPL), GNU General Public License (GPL), GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL)) containing a
"copyleft" requirement during performance of the Services"
- majke 3y agoCan a binary even be gpl?
- looofooo0 3y agoA binary can be under gpl sure. Type gcc in bash for example
- quadhome 3y ago“Any viruses” huh? The semantic gap between engineering and legal is real.
- diego_sandoval 3y agoViruses licensed under the MIT or BSD licenses are OK, though.
- organsnyder 3y agoThe lack of punctuation makes that a totally viable interpretation.
- NekkoDroid 3y agoWould be a shame if someone where to use the EUPL-1.2 just to fuck with them :)
- arp242 3y agoThat entire section 6 is weird; because 6.1 talks about gaining access to WhatsApp's "systems, networks, databases, computers, or other information systems owned", and then 6.2 is the bit you quoted that talks about copyleft. But ... it's not like WhatsApp is hiring me as a sysadmin for their servers, are they? Why would they give me access to their systems? They won't. This seems copy/paste legalese.
- EMIRELADERO 3y ago> But ... it's not like WhatsApp is hiring me as a sysadmin for their servers, are they? Why would they give me access to their systems? They won't. This seems copy/paste legalese. "Access" in this case just means "ability to interact with". It doesn't imply root/admin abilities.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]