[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: Re: Chromium and Google API keys

Thanks for the answers. But for me the question isn't solved yet...

Complementing my opinion:

It seems those keys "per si" aren't copyrightable, but there is a license to obtain these keys.
Otherwise, the Debian packagers couldn't obtain these keys.

Also, the section 2 states:
"Your End Users You will require your end users to comply with any applicable law and these terms.
You will not knowingly enable your end users to violate applicable law or these terms."

If i understood correctly, these "end users" are the Debian users with a web browser with these keys
installed and they have the obligation too agree with these terms. If not, please let me know who are 
those "end users".

Something is not clear: what API services was enabled by the packager?

And more, imagine if every site or service requests an API key to be added at the compile-time
of a browser.  If Google has the rights to do this, why not other companies could do this too?

And now Firefox is supporting the use of these keys too.


At 14 Oct 2013 03:15:30 +0000 (UTC) de Joe Healy <joehealy@gmail.com>:

>On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 01:32:25PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
>> Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> writes:
>> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Ignacio Areta wrote:
>> >
>> > > So, my question is: is the API keys terms of service compatible with
>> > > DFSG? Two parts of these terms doesn't appears FOSS-friendly for me.
>> >
>> > I doubt these strings are copyrightable and so their license is
>> > probably irrelevant.
>> I hope that's true. My suspicion, though, is that even if these works
>> are not subject to copyright restrictions, the license is still relevant
>> to the extent that Google feels entitled to enforce it against Debian
>> recipients.
>Practically speaking, they could not permit access to their services
>when that API key was presented.
>Wouldn't they only be able to enforce the terms of the licence against
>the person that agreed to the terms of that licence?
>This still is unlikely to be good, but my understanding is the worst
>the recipients would suffer is a blocked key. Is that how the list
>understands it?
>I'm not sure where that ends up in terms of being DFSG compliant. My
>take is it would probably still fall foul of number 8. Where do these
>practical, non-licence restrictions fit in terms of the DFSG?
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@[lists.debian.org]
>with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@[lists.debian.org]
>Archive: [http://lists.debian.org/20131014031529.GD19814]@jx200s.jtgs

Reply to: