BSD family of licenses and consumer rights

[bvdw78]

Nobody is filing with the FTC because such a petition has no standing and will go nowhere. That's been explained to you many times over now. What part of that don't you understand?

 

[Krush206]

How may you tell? Have you tried? If you haven't tried, you can't assume a thing. That's just proof you don't care, and may be acting like a troll.

 

[OpenFreeNet]

It isn't hard to understand this matter.

Sure?

If the copyright holders never intended the software to be usable in source form,

"usable in source form" has no precise meaning.

they wouldn't explicitly write as such in the license.

!?
Apache license is a lot more clear, but everybody knows that BSD is a permissive license. So, they wrote that you can freely use the source code, giving only back proper attributions.

It'd make zero sense to write this in the license and refuse to disclose the source code.

Who is the subject? This sentence does not make sense. The copyright-holders disclosed the source, and they write it in the license. So, are you referring to SONY? SONY did not disclosed the source code, but they never write it in their license, because they are using a proprietary license.

There's nothing wrong or imprecise on this.

Every line you wrote is imprecise, hence probably wrong.

I don't exclude you are a troll. Every your answer does not take in consideration what we are saying you. You are all over the places.

 

[Krush206]

OP bring your legal theory to your local authorities and when it gets decided and starts to affect other jurisdicitions maybe we have new data.

Yeah. If the judge does accept that view, I'm afraid y'all would point as a failure of theirs, or that the Brazilian laws are flawed. Judges aren't error-proof.

 

[6502]

It is easy to invent perpetual motion machine especially if you have little knowledge.