4 ms·

So if your service is proprietary, but your client is open source, it looks like your're free to go. As someone that relies on third-party clients to get usabl

So if your service is proprietary, but your client is open source, it looks like your're free to go. As someone that relies on third-party clients to get usable interfaces, if this gets widely adopted it would be great news. It would end the cat-and-mouse game from companies trying to force users onto first-party clients.

Yokohiii 5mo ago
Most proprietary services would process user data. It's also naive to believe that a fraction of open source in a companies pipeline would give them a free pass for everything.
- KAMSPioneer 5mo ago
  But the text says "or," not "and." So by my interpretation if you process user data but are available via "free, public" repo, you're not covered. I presume "free" is defined elsewhere in the text, and that it approximates "open-source."
  - floxy 5mo ago
    >(3) THIS ARTICLE 30 DOES NOT APPLY TO: (e) AN OPERATING SYSTEM PROVIDER OR DEVELOPER THAT DISTRIBUTES AN OPERATING SYSTEM OR APPLICATION UNDER LICENSE TERMS THAT PERMIT A RECIPIENT TO COPY, REDISTRIBUTE, AND MODIFY THE SOFTWARE WITHOUT ANY PLATFORM-IMPOSED TECHNICAL OR CONTRACTUAL RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THE PROVIDER OR DEVELOPER ON INSTALLING ALL MODIFIED VERSIONS.
    - KAMSPioneer 5mo ago
      Aha, thanks! So I think that raises the question of whether e.g. RHEL is affected. Technically it could be argued that they don't add any additional restrictions, but I wonder if Colorado will see it that way.
    - ChucklsTheBeard 5mo ago
      [dead]
gmueckl 5mo ago
But only if the user is not getting the app through an app store but from a "code repository"? I'm not sure if I interpret that correctly, but at first glance it seems confusing and ambiguous. Does that mean I need to download the Android apk from a git repository? Would a clever lawyer be able to argue that the release section on GitHub is outside the repository and therefore not fulfilling this clause? Would F-Droid still not be exempt because it is structured like a store and offers pre-built binaries?

Yokohiii 5mo ago

Most proprietary services would process user data. It's also naive to believe that a fraction of open source in a companies pipeline would give them a free pass for everything.

KAMSPioneer 5mo ago
But the text says "or," not "and." So by my interpretation if you process user data but are available via "free, public" repo, you're not covered. I presume "free" is defined elsewhere in the text, and that it approximates "open-source."
- floxy 5mo ago
  >(3) THIS ARTICLE 30 DOES NOT APPLY TO: (e) AN OPERATING SYSTEM PROVIDER OR DEVELOPER THAT DISTRIBUTES AN OPERATING SYSTEM OR APPLICATION UNDER LICENSE TERMS THAT PERMIT A RECIPIENT TO COPY, REDISTRIBUTE, AND MODIFY THE SOFTWARE WITHOUT ANY PLATFORM-IMPOSED TECHNICAL OR CONTRACTUAL RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THE PROVIDER OR DEVELOPER ON INSTALLING ALL MODIFIED VERSIONS.
  - KAMSPioneer 5mo ago
    Aha, thanks! So I think that raises the question of whether e.g. RHEL is affected. Technically it could be argued that they don't add any additional restrictions, but I wonder if Colorado will see it that way.
  - ChucklsTheBeard 5mo ago
    [dead]

gmueckl 5mo ago

But only if the user is not getting the app through an app store but from a "code repository"? I'm not sure if I interpret that correctly, but at first glance it seems confusing and ambiguous. Does that mean I need to download the Android apk from a git repository? Would a clever lawyer be able to argue that the release section on GitHub is outside the repository and therefore not fulfilling this clause? Would F-Droid still not be exempt because it is structured like a store and offers pre-built binaries?