BSD family of licenses and consumer rights

[OpenFreeNet]

That's essentially the same thing here though. If they've got to also release the source they built on top of the BSD licensed code, that pretty much converts it from being a permissive license to being a copyleft license.

Not exactly, because with GPL everyone has the rights to use the modified source code (i.e. also the modified code is under GPL), while with this hybrid approach, only a (paying) licensee of the product has the rights to obtain the code, modify it, and use it. So the product remain with a proprietary license, but they cannot hide/lock the sorce code to their licensee. And you can become a licensee only if you buy the product. So, it is restricted set, respect the GPL.

EDIT: obviously doing so, a company like SONY will expose their trade-secrets, so it is far from optimal for companies with proprietary products

 

[T-Aoki]

obviously doing so, a company like SONY will expose their trade-secrets, so it is far from optimal for companies with proprietary products

If it really matters, legal department of SONY would immediately prohibit exporting their product to Brazil and notify customs both of local and Brazil to stop their product from exporting/inporting. Much smaller companies that cannot hire enough staff purely for overseas legal works could miss it and export their product to Brazil, and bitten by it, though.

 

[sidetone]

Have you ever bought a bike, piece of furniture or tool that has the label: "as is"? You can usually test them, and make sure they're safe on your own. With minor inspection and/or repairs, it usually works out. BSD licensed software comes as is. If that bothers you, don't use it.

 

[Krush206]

Off-topic, again. Here's a new FTC petition. I'd appreciate for feedback.

 

[OpenFreeNet]

Off-topic, again. Here's a new FTC petition. I'd appreciate for feedback.

The Petitioner requests that the Commission issue an Interpretive Rule stating that:

"Representation communicates; omission withholds. The Right to be Informed protects the consumer's ability to receive information necessary for meaningful choice. Where information withholding impairs that choice, causes substantial injury, renders the injury not reasonably avoidable, and provides no countervailing benefit to consumers or competition, the withholding of information may constitute an unfair act or practice under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act."

It seems unnecessary. By definition an "omission" is the lack of important information or the lack of proper actions. If I buy a product, they can omit to specify that if it is hit by a lighting it can explode. But, it is an omission if they don't inform me that the battery can explode when the product drop in the water. They should tell me to cover with concrete material, not water, if there is a fire hazard. Everything that is different from common known facts, should be specified. Otherwise it is an omission.

But probably the best thing I can do, is ignoring this thread because there were very few useful information. It is border-line trolling.

 

[bvdw78]

Krush206 your petition probably will get reviewed and it may even get incorporated into the FTC's policy guidelines. An interpretive rule will likely get shot down in court for being vague, should it ever receive serious pushback. In the context of getting orgs like SONY to disclose any source code at all ever, a snowflake in hell still has better chances. That *still* hinges on the idea of injury. No reasonable consumer of SONY's products is "injured" by the omission of BSD-licensed source code. Why? Because what the consumer purchased was a device that plays games, and that device remains entirely fit for purpose. That's the agreement that exists between the consumer and SONY. No more. Given that no other legal requirement exists for SONY to provide any kind of code at all to anyone, note that this sits in sharp contrast to similar cases that dealt with GPL-licensed software, that's where this entire crusade is going to end.

 

[T-Aoki]

No more. Given that no other legal requirement exists for SONY to provide any kind of code at all to anyone, note that this sits in sharp contrast to similar cases that dealt with GPL-licensed software, that's where this entire crusade is going to end.

An exception would be when SONY's product like PlayStation caused fire and software controlling the device is suspected to be the root cause. Not unconditionally.

But even in such a cases, SONY is responsible and BSD-licensed codes used itself isn't, as SONY is responsible for using BSD-licensed codes.

Of course, this is NOT limited with SONY, but ALL manufacturers selling actual, physical products. (Not sure about recent EU, though.)

 

[Krush206]

X. PRICE AS A MIRROR OF THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE
Price constitutes a core, non-negotiable material attribute of any commercial transaction. The Petitioner relies on the factual premise that the consumer's Right to Choose is entirely dependent upon a guarantee of competitive price assurance. When a supplier conceals structural, operational, or legal limitations, they effectively mask hidden future costs—including inflated exit costs and forced ecosystem fees. Withholding this price-relevant data corrupts the market's pricing signals, rendering a meaningful comparison of options impossible and destroying the consumer's ability to select assets based on genuine economic merit.

XI. THE CORRUPTION OF COMPETITIVE PRICE ASSURANCE
Under the substantial injury prong of the Unfairness Test, a firm's failure to disclose structural parameters that dictate a product's true economic cost constitutes an independent infraction. By omitting material information that directly impacts price transparency, the firm actively subverts the competitive price assurances inherent to the Right to Choose. This information-withholding practice transforms a routine retail choice into an anti-competitive economic trap, satisfying the threshold for a structural Section 5 Unfairness finding.

Off-topic, again. I managed to connect part of the Right to Choose. The Right to Choose shall assure, wherever possible, access to a variety of products and services at competitive prices.

Now I wish to connect access to the unfairness doctrine.

Interpretation is a brilliant skill.

 

[ralphbsz]

Are you the graduated lawyer? This isn't what my father's told me.

No, I don't have a law degree. But PLENTY of experience in participating in lawsuits, both personal ones, and professional ones (those were about IP rights and patents).

Anyway, copyright law as applied to software has been an active topic since the 1980s (and probably earlier). And open source was litigated heavily at least since the 90s. This is not a new area, and the legal situation there is not "terra incognita".

The FTC policy statements on unfairness and deception were drafted in the 80s.

Another old area. It's amazing that you believe to have just discovered something nobody has thought about in the intervening 40 years.