[Trisquel-devel] abrowser addons was Re: Packaged Youtube ALL HTML5
Andrew M. 'Leny' Lindley
leny2010 at member.fsf.org
Fri May 23 23:28:36 CEST 2014
On Friday 23 May 2014 12:19:54 Quiliro Ordóñez Baca wrote:
> El 22/04/14 13:14, Andrew Lindley escribió:
> > Again IANAL, however, to a first language English speaker
> > grammatically http://flashvideodownloader.org/ is the object of the
> > sentence, the [e.g. user's] information received the subject, thus the
> > user has no obligations in it. So AFAICT in the UK it is a contract
> > between the author and the end user guaranteeing their data will only
> "Before getting down to using this plug-in, please, take the time to
> read the
> implies that you have read and accepted these terms to the fullest extent."
> That means that the user accepts and not that the service provider
> constrains himself/herself from using that information in certain ways.
> It also reveals that information is not private.
> > All in all it is a great example of why programmers should always use
> > standard licenses and not garnish them with their own T&C's on the
> > end.
This is so reminiscent of 80s business discussions about what we'd now call
gratis software there was source with, so I'd agree with dispensing with the
plugin on the same basis used then - It'll need a lawyer to work out what this
'license' means and the software of itself doesn't justify that. E.g. the
section you quote above likely would be ignored anywhere shrink-wrap licensing
doesn't work in law. And when taken in combination with the extended terms it
probably has different meanings in the various jurisdictions where shrink-wrap
licensing is allowed.
I first got a business to use free software (GPL) around '91 and part of the
sales pitch was 'it's got a proper license' precisely because of the
reputation of 'free' [gratis] source program licensing then which this idiocy
More information about the Trisquel-devel