BSD family of licenses and consumer rights

kjpetrie said:
It appears the OP somehow believes the licence propagates throughout the supply chain, which of course it doesn't. He seems to think because I received the code under the BSD licence I am also distributing it with the BSD licence, which I'm not. The final consumer does not agree to the licence and is not bound by it. The right he cites is only for the person who receives the source code, not for the person who receives any subsequent binary built from it. Of course, PROCON probably think he is that person rather than a downstream third party.
Click to expand...
The seller is bound to consumer laws for everything included in the product. If the license states "use in source form" is permitted, the seller is responsible for making the permission useful. Again, if we depend entirely on copyright laws, only the copyright holders have the right to enforce, and the same applies to GNU GPL. As a consumer of a BSD-licensed-powered product, I have the right to demand useful exercise of the "use in source form" clause. Otherwise, the seller is a fraud.
OpenFreeNet said:
but obviously SONY is not selling the PlayStation with a contract that stipulates "use in source form", because BSD license does not apply to the PlayStation as a product. The BSD license grants permissions to SONY for using the BSD code inside the PlayStation product, only if they meet some conditions. It is a license and not a contract, and it is between SONY and the authors and contributors of BSD code, not with the users of the product.
Click to expand...
Refer to the above.
6502 said:
Now enroll in a copyright law course. Do you think judges in Brazil have studied only "consumer law course" and it is all necessary for their work? Or you think that consumer law is at highest level of all laws?
Click to expand...
Refer to the above.
 
Krush206 said:
If the license states "use in source form" is permitted, the seller is responsible for making the permission useful.
Click to expand...
... but the PlayStation license does not say that "use in source form" is permitted. So, SONY is not responsible of something they do not state. They inform you that their product is based on FreeBSD source code, and that the "use in source form" of FreeBSD source code is allowed. They are not removing nothing from FreeBSD source code rights. The BSD license apply only to the FreeBSD code part, not to the patches made by SONY.

The BSD license is not so well written, but this is they way all the world understand it, and you cannot convince a judge of your interpretation, unless you have very strong arguments.
 
Consider the following analogy. A person purchased an Android mobile phone. Later, it's found a bug in the SoC. The SoC is manufactured by Qualcomm. Motorola marketed the product. Do you call the manufacturer or the marketer?

The same applies to BSD-licensed software. You don't call the copyright holders to obtain the sources. You call the marketer of the product. The transaction is between consumer and marketer, not between consumer and manufacturer.
 
Actually, this is the exact behavior I've experienced from many companies. They shift the responsibility to other companies. This is abusive.
 
Krush206 said:
Consider the following analogy. A person purchased an Android mobile phone. Later, it's found a bug in the SoC. The SoC is manufactured by Qualcomm. Motorola marketed the product. Do you call the manufacturer or the marketer?
Click to expand...
I call Motorola.

Krush206 said:
The same applies to BSD-licensed software. You don't call the copyright holders to obtain the sources. You call the marketer of the product. The transaction is between consumer and marketer, not between consumer and manufacturer.
Click to expand...
If there is a software defect in PlayStation, I call SONY, and they are obliged to fix the defect and send binary patches. This despite in the BSD license there is written "THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS “AS IS” AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. ", because the BSD license is valid between SONY and FreeBSD copyright holders, not between SONY and me. SONY is responsible if the product does not fit its stated purpose. SONY cannot sue FreeBSD copyright holders, but I can sue SONY. The BSD LICENSE does not apply to PlayStation.

If there is no defect, I cannot call SONY pretending the source code of their patches, unless there is some national law about the rights of a costumer to have access to the source code of electronic devices. But this is completely unrelated to BSD license.
 
I am so glad I "unwatched" this thread.
Right now all I see is a lot of theory a lot of shooting down that theory which brings in more speculation.
Kind of watching a trainwreck.
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.
Right now I feel we have theories based in Brazil then jumping over to legal terms in the US and no overriding authority.

Honestly, state your desired goal because at this point in time I have no idea what you want
 
sidetone said:
You're misinterpreting the licenses. In this logic, you may as well try to sue Public Domain, and Creative Commons. This will get nowhere with a judge.
Click to expand...
If we're lucky, I'd be worried that the judge does buy that nonsense and it just means that all these products get yanked from the market over something that wasn't in the license to begin with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top