|
|
Maybe it is just in my mind, but some new Linux Distributors cannot redact good license terms for their works. Even some of them have written license too narrow (in excess from my point of view) that they look like the one of an infamous Proprietary OS...
|
|
Strange Distro Terms
When I read this morning distrowatch's main page, some "distro" catch my look into its terms, next is the original text that present this one...
"Carlos La Borde has announced the release of iMagic OS 2009.5, a commercial desktop Linux distribution based on Ubuntu:"
A commercial ubuntu based "distro". May this is new to me, but i decide to give a look into their web page using the hyperlink in Distrowatch. What a surprise for me to found the text of the license for iMagic OS which includes between their "terms of use" this EULA (extracted)...
The iMagic OS weird EULA
"You may not (and shall not allow any member of Your Household or any other third party to): (i) copy, reproduce, distribute, relicense, sublicense, rent, lease or otherwise make available the Software or any portion or element thereof except as and to the extent expressly authorized herein by Licensor; (ii) translate, adapt, enhance, create derivative works of or otherwise modify the Software or any portion or element thereof; (iii) decompile, disassemble or reverse engineer (except as and to the extent permitted by applicable local law), or extract ideas, algorithms, procedures, workflows or hierarchies from, the Software or any portion or element thereof; (iv) use the Software or any portion or element thereof to provide facility management, service bureau or similar services to third parties; or (v) remove, modify or obscure any identification or proprietary or restrictive rights markings or notices from the Software or any component thereof. You shall keep a current record of the location of each copy of the Software You make."
Conclusions
Then my first think was to write this little article to call attention to community to examine this license and the entire terms of distribution for iMagic OS. I'm not a lawyer of course, but in my humble opinion this may exceeds the protection needed for a proprietary complemented distribution.
They do really think nobody 's going to read their license? or Is that they really think they can overrides GPL as easy as this?
Well, that's my story and my only reason to write this is to share with the community this weird case when the licensors maybe don't read the GPL or just ignores "in the name of business". I think that people in iMagic OS company may rewrite their EULA or just search for another OS, not based on linux or GPL software at all.
Thank's for all.
litosteel@yahoo.com
|
