| Summary: | Elastic-2.0 license | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Tomáš Mózes <hydrapolic> |
| Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | Licenses team <licenses> |
| Status: | CONFIRMED --- | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | gentoo |
| Priority: | Normal | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
|
Description
Tomáš Mózes
2021-03-31 05:52:50 UTC
The Elastic-2.0 license says: "By using the software, you agree to all of the terms and conditions below." (Which IMHO has the usual bootstrap problem: unless you do any action covered by copyright law, you need not accept the license, including that sentence. Using the software is no such action.) Based on that, it then tries to impose usage restrictions: "You may not provide the software to third parties as a hosted or managed service, where the service provides users with access to any substantial set of the features or functionality of the software." (Note that it says "may" here, not "must". So it is not an absolute prohibition?) The question is if this license needs to be added to the @EULA group? An argument against this would be that nothing forces the user to accept the license, or to enter in a contract with the licensor (in spite of the first sentence quoted above). Licenses team, any opinion? Disclaimer: IANAL, TINLA |
