Slashdot Mirror
Corel Linux Only For 18 and Up
Caspian writes "There's an interesting-- and disturbing-- clause in the EULA for Corel's new Linux distribution-- namely, you can't download it unless you're over 18. No mention of an exception for those with parental permission is mentioned. As one who first used Linux at 13 or 14, and first installed it himself at 16, I'm shocked and very much upset. Thoughts?" We've got the offended section of the EULA attached below. Interestingly enough, Corel Linux is based on Debian which has a huge percentage of minor aged developers. Apparently they aren't even allowed to download their own code.
The snippet in question is very close to the top of the EULA. Here are the top few lines-- read for yourself, or read it off of Corel's site here:
End User License Agreement
IMPORTANT: READ CAREFULLY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE
FOLLOWING AGREEMENT ("LICENSE") BEFORE DOWNLOADING THE
PRODUCT. BY CLICKING "ACCEPT" BELOW:
1.YOU CERTIFY THAT YOU ARE NOT A MINOR AND THAT YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY ALL OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET OUT IN THE LICENSE BELOW. DOWNLOADING AND/OR USING THE PRODUCT WILL BE AN IRREVOCABLE ACCEPTANCE OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE LICENSE.
On one new years eve me and a friend made batch files that used the more, and some command with 8,N,1:9600 and the lovely |. You could use a terminal program and one person could dial up the other person dos box and use it like you where teleneted in. It was fucked up!.
Another time I broke my monitor and I type pipe | prn:lp01 and it piped everything from my screen
and printed it out on paper.
Is it just me or did Corel's site for Linux go down? /. strikes again.
Phone fraud, reckless misuse of advanced technology, theft of intellectual property...and the list keeps growing.
Hmm, I take your point. However the age where you can enter into a legally binding contract varies between countries. That will be the cause of much wierdness if they try and stick to this.
Also, doesn't restricting access to the software violate the GPL? Corel Linux is sitting ontop of Debian isn't it? In which case it definately violates the Debian social contract.
Al.
--
The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker
Who cares? We all might care soon if Corel is right. Let me quote from the original comment:
"Can a minor consent to release code under the GPL when they may not be legally able to establish contracts?
The fact that we might like the answer to be yes does not necessarily make it so...
"
That's an excellent point. What if a minor contributed to a major part of an open source project and submitted it. If they can't enter a legal contract, then the code they submit is not legally under the GPL. Which would _maybe_ mean that a big mean company could come along and use it without releasing the source. Granted, this would be difficult since it's tough to tell who's a minor and who's not, and exactly what their conrtibution would have been, but it's something to think about. Doesn't the FSF require releases for developers, and don't those releases have to be signed by someone over 18 or their legal gaurdian?
I think the problem is that Corel would be legally resposible for anything a minor would do with the software
Canadian? Is that a joke?
That's why most video places require that you be 18 or have a parents consent to have rental privliges there. The parents then are responsible for the contract. This might be the defacto case regardless of the parents knowledge of the license.
If its stupid but it works, its not stupid.
Nah, It's in the Linux kernel also :)
/* Fuck me plenty... */
...something?... There really isn't an english substitute for the word, but it is intuitively understandable that when a function call says 'Fuck Me plenty!' that it is a highly scalable implementation, extremely usefull, low overhead and roboust function call which you can call very often. In fact the words stand out in the source, so you will more intuitively find the correct place in the source to look at.
linux/fs/binfmt_aout.c:
But, I think the foul words are dissapearing faast to be more corporate friendly. Personally I think we should be able to write FUCK if that is the appropriate word to use in the context.
Although the Oxford learners dictionary failes to capture the true meaning of the word, by stating that fuck means 'have sexual intercourse with'. At least intuetively I think that the true meaning of Fuck is more
On the other hand 'fucked up' communicates that the function call is more that buggy/defect/incorrect but that you have managed to break a piece of incomprehensible spagetti code with significant amount of complexity. And complete re-engineering effort might be required.
I think that it unfortunate that certain words are considered bad, because all words communicate meaning. It is much better advocate responsible use of language, rather than amputating it.
The foul language debate I think could be paralleled to the banning of GOTO in structured languages, although goto in many instances a really bad word to use wich truly hurt the fealings of people maintaining code, just removing it resulted in less powerfull languages.
After the intitial Anti-goto purity hysteria calmed down, better forms of getting out of deeply nested structures came about. Although GOTO is still unspeakable, we do have the words 'continue' and 'break' which are used in Java and C although they essentially are correctly used goto's in disguise.
Words like Fuck, Screwed and Shit can be used to good effect in computer programming.
Examples:
Fuck me - This is the function you are looking for and you can use this to your hearts content, it will never break.
Use me - Same as above, but read the specification carefully for proper input parameters.
-- Tov Are Jacobsen
The difference between downloading software and buying a book is that when you download you are creating a new copy of the software, whereas the book is a copy manufactured by the publisher -- and the publisher does have to have a contract, licence, etc.
It's all a little weirder when you consider software on CDs. I think most countries still count running software as copying it (you copy it from CD to disc, and disc to RAM), which is the excuse people give for all these shrink-wrap licences.
The example they might point to is buying a painting from an artist. The artist retains the copyright, so you can't publish copies of the painting without licensing it from the artist, even though you own the object itself. This makes perfect sense for physical objects, but seems strange to many people when applied to intangibles like software.
The FSF attempt to turn this strange system on its head with the GPL, by offering the General Public a licence gratis. Thus everyone can copy GPL software -- so long as they can enter in to the licence agreement. This all falls down if they can't, but most authors of GPL software will turn a blind eye to underage contributors.
From what other posters have said, Corel's situation might be different, because it is possible in Canada for minors to enter a contract without being bound by it, or it might just be that they are making explicit something that the GPL takes for granted.
First: I can understand their concern that the agreement be as binding as possible. This is most effeciently guaranteed by limiting users to those 18 years of age or older.
Second: If I were to violate the license (and were 18- years old) I would not care about a clause saying I was not allowed to have the software in the first place. If I'm violating one part of the agreement, why not both?
Third: What about the rest of the license. If you live in Canada, you are bound by the laws of Quebec. Anywhere else however, and you are bound by the laws in Ireland?!? What particular Irish law does Corel have in mind here? Is Corel based in Ireland, and I just haven't heard about it yet?
Fourth: "All right, title and interest in the Software Programs, including source code, documentation, appearance, structure and organization, are held by Corel Corporation, Corel Corporation Limited, and others and are protected by copyright and other laws." Which is reasonable until you remember how "software programs" was defined: "Corel LINUX is a modular operating system made up of individual software components that were created by various individuals and entities ("Software Programs")." This definition clearly includes GPL'd code, the rights to which, by definition, cannot be "held by Corel Corporation, Corel Corporation Limited, and others" as the license says.
These concerns have been made known to Corel via email. I will keep you all posted re their response.
High-speed Road Trip (18.000KPH)
MFC == Microsoft Fried Chicken, At least that is what I heard the Borland developers called it.
Microsoft calles MFC Microoft Foundation Classes.
The GPL says that *anyone* can use it and modify it and redistribute. That includes minors. When will Corel accept the fact that they have no power over who uses their distro?
How dare you. I am 17 and have been using Linux since I was 14 and did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe a few of us are in favor of and would like to see the GPL upheld? Immediatly casting of all people under 18 as idiots who can't understand the GPL or kinivng brats who just want to screw the FSF is outrageous. What magicl transformation happened to you when you turned 18 that instantly made you worldy and trustworthy? Linux was from the begining and still is only succesful because of the contributions of thousands of coders around the world. The next time tht you find out the small piece of software that is vital to your systems operation was written someone underage i don't think you'll take such a narrow few then.. I believe we should call for a boycot of Corel Linux until they change the license and if they refuse coders who are underage should stop providing updates to their existing software. Why should we not be able to enjoy the furits of our own labors?
Ryan Dorman, CCNA Network Communications Specialist Millersville Univesrity
I agree, the best way to show Corel that we DISLIKE their discrimination is to use some other DISTRO. Corel is in it for the PROFIT, no matter was BS they say...So profit someone else and let Corel no why...there can be no sweeter feeling :)
Or the 3½" penguin-in-the-box is inflatable or simply not wearing a proper loincloth...
Anyway, methinks this "adults only" clause is a brilliant marketing idea because as we type hundreds of millions of minors are rushing to Corel's ftp-site to grab a piece of this forbidden fruit.
Go, little devils, go!
Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?
Makes sense to have it in there from Corel's point of view, since if you're under 18 it makes you responsible for it, and also if you DO, say, make something proprietary out of GCC (mentioned earlier) and try to sell it the company you try to sell it to SHOULD think "hey, this is a minor, we >can't) and that would make the GPL enforceable on minors...
Interesting note - my Win95 licenses have no such age restrictions in them that I can find, either in the general area, the US area or the Australia/NZ area. Does that mean if you're under 18 and buy Windows you're exempt from the license restrictions?
however, most software is not "sold" to you, they are "licensed" to you. Which is a big difference since you have to abide by the rules since you DO NOT OWN it, the company still does :)
Its spelt "L-I-N-U-X", but pronunced as "Free Beer"
I'm going to make a blind guess that you live in the U.S. If this is the case, then while it sucks in some ways, you as a minor cannot make a legally binding contract. Don't believe everyone who's said this so far? Go ask a decent lawyer. They'll tell you the same thing. Don't be "insulted" by Corel just because they take the time to point out that you can't legally agree to the terms of the contract. Everyone else assumes that you understand that you aren't legally allowed to consent to their contracts. It's not like they're going to come sue you for using their software anyway. Unless you start to ignore the terms and do illegal things with it, in which case they've got that special clause there which gives them a little bit of extra protection. In these litigation crazy United States, they need everything they can get. (Also, don't forget that Corel is a Canadian company and that somehow Canadian law may require such a clause (I'm really guessing on that one though, so anyone who has any commentary, please add)).
-Mike
Does this mean that If you are a minor that your have to get someone to get your linux along as well as your beer.
"If you have done 6 impossible things this morning, why not round it off with breakfast at Milliways" -- hhgg
Does this mean that If you are a minor that your have to get someone to get your linux as well as your beer.
"If you have done 6 impossible things this morning, why not round it off with breakfast at Milliways" -- hhgg
I'd still be curious to know how much of Corel's source code was written by people under 18...
- Matt
/usr/games/fortune: Segmentation fault (Core dumped)
--
43rd law of computing:
Anything that can go wr
He didn't say all minors will break the licence or that they cannot understand it.
He was merely pointing out the fear a company would have about minors getting thier software unlicenced.
-- "Well, Hello, Mr. Fancy-pants. I've got news for you pal, you ain't in control but two things right now, Jack and s
If we accept your premise, then the minor would not be able to use the software at all (e.g. nothing but the GPL gives him any right to copy the software).
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I actually downloaded the iso yesterday and burned it. When I installed it it crashed on me 3 times when setting up the partitions. Here are my complaints. 1. When setting up the partitions it wouldn't let you use ones that already existed. (Had previous ones from Redhat) I had to blow them away and remake them. 2. Tried to install everything (total of 360M) on a 500M /, 1G /usr, 100M /home. Wouldn't let me said I didn't have enough space What is that all about?? Ended up doing the standard Install (keep this in mind for number 4) 3. No option to have it boot from a floppy on setup (I reinstall winblows 95, NT, and 2000 every once in a while and this will become annoying. It sets up it's own bootloader (uses LILO with a pretty frontend. 4. Would not recognize my mouse which was sitting on Com2 (oops ttyS1) did a CTRL-ALT-F1 and got to a prompt, looked for gpm, found the libgpm files but no gpm executable (am I missing something?) Pretty much that is all I have seen. If I can get the mouse working I can probably be amazed at the wonders that Corel has introduced into KDE. Until then right now Red Hat is better. My impression of CorelLinux is that it was rushed out the door. Although I have to keep in mind this is version 1.0.
Makes sense to have it in there from Corel's point of view, since if you're under 18 it makes you responsible for it, and also if you DO, say, make something proprietary out of GCC (mentioned earlier) and try to sell it the company you try to sell it to SHOULD think "hey, this is a minor, we CAN'T legally buy something from him".
:-)) and that would make the GPL enforceable on minors...
I also saw the GPL as being much closer to "buying" software, rather than "leasing" it like most licenses say. Case could be made that when I downloaded Corel Linux (or Debian or whatever) that I just "bought" it (it was cheap!
Interesting note - my Win95 licenses have no such age restrictions in them that I can find, either in the general area, the US area or the Australia/NZ area. Does that mean if you're under 18 and buy Windows you're exempt from the license restrictions?
Is it not also available in the store?
Is it a GPL violation to restrict distribution in a certain channel, when the exact same product is available through other channels? I don't think so.
They aren't saying that nobody under 18 can use corel linux.. just that nobody under 18 can DOWNLOAD IT FROM THEIR SITE.
You can always go buy it.... or order it.
Overall, distribution is not hindered.
What if I sold debian boxed sets in an XXX shop? (okay.. wierd idea, but hey...).. would you say I can't because nobody under 18 is allowed in the shop?
no Corel is in it to lower the use of MS Windows/Office. If you want to piss Corel off then use something like StarOffice or a compeditor for CorelDraw
I think the purpose of the clause is to make sure that the person agreeing is the same person who will be held legally responsible for his actions.
Here in Norway, anyone under 15 who breaks the law will cause his parents to get into legal trouble.
Can't see how it will have more effect than the "you must be over 18 to click here" signs on the Other Kind of download sites.
The easiest way is simply to ignore the licence...
I've read a few licences in my life and most of them are not possible too agree with.
After some reading between the lines, they all seem to say:
"Allthough you have payed for this product *WE* still own it and you can only do what we *allow* you to do with it.
And since you are reading this, you've opened the package and therfore allready agreed to this licence-agreement. Mouhahahaha! (evil laughter)"
Who in his/hers right mind would agree to something like that?
Who in his/hers right mind dreams up a licence like that?
The evil cat in Dilbert?
Ok, for a company it is hard to ignore a licence-agreement, but I've nerver heard of anyone who's been sued for using a product without agreeing with the licence at home.
/.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
In the US, the law doesn't allow minors to enter into any kind of contract (although there may be an exception if the parent or legal guardian consents). IANAL, but I'm guessing the boilerplate is standard contract speak to make the license "null and void" in the case of minors, as downloading the software constitutes accepting the terms of the contract/license.
So before people go crucifying Corel, this may be in there just to cover Corel's legal tuckus, and not keep Corel Linux out of the hands of the very people who make it possible.
Rev. Dr. Xenophon Fenderson, the Carbon(d)ated, KSC, DEATH, SubGenius, mhm21x16
I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian Heritage
maybe they did it because of all the F-words In the keRnel Source, or whaT do you think ? ;-)
Say no to software patents.
-- .sig files go when they die?
Child: Mommy, where do
Mother: HELL! Straight to hell!
I've never been the same since.
Just like driving a car:
(D) to go forward
(R) to go backward
Yipes. Sorry about that, guys. I didn't know that things were like that outside the US. (BELIEVE ME, I'm not a pro-US individual; I don't like it at all, but I AM used to it.) You learn something new every day. :/
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
I can't help get the feeling that by "enhancing" linux they are attempting to bend it all out of whack.
Presumably the Over 18 clause exists purely because they are trying to force a contract down your throat in the form of a EULA.
Doesn't this violate the GPL in some way by effectively restricting who can download the source of a distribution?
Sigh.
The secret of success is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake those, you've got it made. (Marx)
There's a little twist that prevents the GPL from being invalid if someone who cannot legally agree to the licence downloads GPL source.
Normaly copyright law provides _more_ protection than the GPL. The GPL grants you the right to modify and distribute, with important restrictions. You wouldn't normally have this right, even if you could see the source. If you can't be bound by the GPL, then you no longer have any of those rights to modify and distribute, and everything falls back on the author's basic copyright.
Maybe we should get our legal friends to host an AskSlashdot on the subject? The relevance to other EULAs, such as movies or video games, is intriguing. Although I suspect the fall-back to copyright will protect the owner.
I'm guessing that they've enhanced the X window system, and it's now the XXX window system.
On a more serious note, does the GPL not exclude them from doing this?
PigPog.
Ok...I wasn't going to download it anyway, but now it's ilegal for me to? I think that's pushing it too far. I understand that if you are a minor you cannot legaly agree to a contract (and that's why I'm allowed to pirate software....NOT!) But for some FREE software?! I sure hope they have a good reason...like nude background images in the CD.
The subject says it all. The reason why the EULA states you need to be over 18 is simply becouse anyone under the age of 18 can't enter a legally binding contract.
I hadn't thought of that before now, but it's a darned good point that needs to be addressed..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
What does the GPL say about this? Can you exclude a single group of persons from the software. Anyone that's into the GPL legals that know?
If a minor buys Windows XX, and since they cannot be bound to the EULA, can they sue Microsoft for damages caused by loss of data and system crashes?
Have you seen some of the language in the source? I would not read it to either one of my daughters.
No hour on a horse is ever wasted. Winston Churchill
That's a pretty good way to say "first post" without getting moderated away. In fact you managed to get moderated up instead of down! Kudos.
--
Patrick Doyle
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
No. The EULA gives you the rights to use the software and specifies under which conditions you are allowed to do that. Theoretically, you must agree on the EULA before using the software. Since the law in most countries does not allow kids to be bound by a contract (the EULA), then the kids are not allowed to use the program.
But of course, the parents of the kid can be bound by the EULA and allow her to use the program. Then the parents are responsible for letting the kid do whatever she wants with the program.
According to the law, there are many things that minors cannot do on their own. Agreeing on a EULA is just one of these things that require parental approval. Actually, now that I think about it, even agreeing on the GPL is something that a minor is not supposed to do.
-Raphaël
Hehe, I can see the headlines now: "Penguin accused of raping minor and posting images on website"
Say no to software patents.
Kind of paradoxal. minors aren't affected by EULA's, then why would they care about this restriction we are talking about ? :)
It's hard to be sure if this is an oversight, or just some over-zealous lawyers, but somehow I doubt Corel plan to ship pornographic-mpeg-collection.deb along with the distribution. So there's little point in baying for Corel's blood at this point when polite requests that they remove this particular bit of boilerplate from their legalese will almost certainly result in the problem being fixed less than a month from now, and perhaps within days.
On the other hand, if they do plan to include hardcore pornography, what was the download site again?
--
Xenu loves you!
You're lucky to be in Germany where ISDN is quite cheap. Most households in the UK don't have ISDN...
In that case you have my sympathy. I think that just strengthens my point then, if Germany isn't even the worst-case scenario. That was actually a best-case scenario for Germany, since, particularly for a really large download, the $/byte ratio is better for ISDN than for modem.
Chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
Here in the UK there are laws that (IIRC) say somthing like a minor (ie 18) can not be bound by a contract (which is why you normally need a signature from a parent to open bank acounts etc). Could it be that Corel are trying to plug a hole that prevents minors being bound by an EULA ??
bil
Where you stand depends on where you sit...
i think corel is hiding porno pics in this corel linux. is somebody have another reson for this s***
IANAL, but one of the many people caught up in the debian maintainer mess so I've given some thought to the DFSG.
This clause only makes sense if it's interpreted as applying to discrimination *not required by law*. The alternative is asserting that the original (and Debian's) license supercedes the law and courts, a risky position. We may not agree with the way minors are treated, but it's insane to disregard it.
As a trivial example, let's consider a family which uses "NetNanny" to keep a minor child from accessing a porn site. We might all agree this is silly and pointless, but it's within the parent's legal rights. The kid downloads Debian and installs it, and bypasses the parental controls. (If you're a conservative Republican, insert a sentence stating that the kid is so enflamed by the images on his screen that he goes out and rapes a girlscout going door to door selling cookies.) The parents (and DA) are pissed, and they're looking for someone to sue. Could Debian and/or Corel be held partially responsible, perhaps under an "attractive nuisance" ordinance? Even if the case is thrown out, how much will it cost?
It's easy to stand on a soapbox and say that Corel shouldn't care, but are you on the hook for the legal bills if you're wrong? An angry parent could still sue Corel for enabling their kid to access a porn site, but with that nod to existing law Corel will have a far better chance of getting the case thrown out immediately.
I'm not particularly happy about these clauses appearing in EULAs, but I recognize it as a sign that more people are taking us seriously, for better and worst.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Interestingly, this would mean the opposite of what the original post said: if a minor downloads a GPLed piece of software, he cannot agree to the license, and is therefore not allowed to modify and further distribute it. Which isn't to great for young Open Source developers...
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
You fail to read the text and just went by
the title so you could easily qualify in the
category that you try to imply that I categorize
kids.
Have you read a bit you would have realized that
my critic was at Corel and not at the kids.
If my son trashes the computer he will awould get
it him trouble. Installing Corel Linux trashes the
computer, isn't that clear enough?
I was being sarcastic about the age restriction.
Restricting downloads to lower than 18 isn't
something people should be concerned. How
the heck can they enforce this?
As usual the crowd on slashdot went bunkers.
Great... does this mean that I'll get carded before I'm able to log into the GNU ftp server?
jason
i think corel is hiding porno pix in this linux. is somebody have another reson for this S***
IDENTIFICATION DIVISION. PROGRAM-ID. COBPROG. ENVIRONMENT DIVISION. DATA DIVISION. WORKING-STORAGE SECTION. 01 OH-SHOOT PIC X(28). PROCEDURE DIVISION. MAIN-PROCEDURE MOVE 'OH SH*T, I CAN PROGRAM COBOL' TO OH-SHOOT. DISPLAY OH-SHOOT. STOP RUN. Ahhh, I wondered why my IQ was dropping...
Well, who reads the EULA anyway? I just click NEXT so fast it isnt funny (In fact, i probably ghave rights to my brain to some Tiwanese geurillas but cant be bound to it because oim 13 =P)
Just ignore it. Corel doesn't have the resources to press charges against a large number of people. If Canada is the binding court, they'll have to cooperate with law enforcement agencies in other countries. I'm sure they will come into a U.S. (or any other country) High School and arrest little Johnny, who refused to go to a Canadian court, for violation of an EULA. Microsoft' software has been pirated all throughout Russia. What's Microsoft going to do? They can't do anything on such a large scale. If MS can't do much, then Corel certainly won't be able to do anything whether it's in Russia or somewhere else. Here's one that the minor's lawyer could say: "Little Johnny can't read. So he can't be bound by the license." Here's another one: "Little Johnny is a minor. He didn't understand the legal ramifications for his actions." Someone ought to submit this to Jay Leno or David Letterman. Makes for a great joke.
"You're not putting a lot of faith in my generation."
... no problem at all. "
We are in the SAME GENERATION! I screwed it up and alot of my freinds screwed it up, but if we read the instructions it would of been alot smoother.
Oh yea, that should be the new Linux motto:
"I was 9 or 10 when I did my first linux installation
See Easy install for the masses!
Maybe you where just some sort of brain child, the old slackware distro are a bitch to install on systems with multi OS installed before hand. doing that at 9 years of age is alot tougher.
Yet another random insult from someone outside the USA. The poster said that in the USA you have to be 18. And he was 100% correct. He explicitly said USA! Can you not get that throuth your thick (probably canuck) skull?
As for the EULA, sure it probably was from a EULA template but do you understand the reason that a company would put in given the countries that do not hold minors legally bound to contracts?
sorry, but they are considered invalid. lets take the following example (i know this to be true, because it did happen)
some high school students (all under 18) came back from going off campus for lunch. they stop to talk to one of the hall monitors, because they are neighbors. the hall monitor mentions that he smells pot, and has the dean of students come out to the car (standard procedure). the dean calls the police (but for some reason doens't call the parents, which is also illegal in this district), with a drug dog, and they don't find anything, however in this school district, there is a zero tolerance for drugs, so they are to be expelled. the dean takes pity on the students, and decides to give them just a 5 day suspension(maximun allowed in the school district), if they sign a waiver saying that they did smoke pot, but they are ammiting it. in the agreement, is the punishment, and the admission. the dean takes the contract, and because of the law saying that minors can't sign contracts, it becomes a signed confession, which is allowed for minors. they get expelled, and the students parents sue the school district. the dean got fired, and there was a large ruckus raised about the whole thing. the students are back in the school which they were expelled from.
we should revise the current law to something of the effect of "if you have a drivers license, you are competant enough to sign a contract as an adult" or something to that effect (i chose drivers license, because if you have one, you have to be competant enough to drive....(then again, this is california......))
What makes this interesting is how the other day I noticed that "bigleaves.jpg" was removed from KDE's backagrounds. Corel had a good reason for doing that, so that big companies who install CL can't go through the backgrounds and say, "What? These Linux people and Corel are nothing but drug pushers!" Aside: Corel's own backgrounds they put in there are very cool looking.
So basically they are removing potentially offensive content (yes, some people find that offensive, sigh) but are still requiring over-18 to download it.
I guess I'll have to wait for a statement from Corel themselves, if one does come.
Bruce Perens
Bruce Perens.
It's that catch-22. You don't want minors to access your pr0n/casino/store/linux-distro whatever because they're minors and can't enter into legally binding contracts. So you put up a legally binding contract certifying that they're over 18 to cover your ass?!?!?! WTF kind of circular logic is this?
I find it puzzling that Corel would do such a thing. But it came as no surprise to me. Remember the beta agreement.
There were many Slashdot users who slagged many other users who put up red flags with the beta agreement. No fear, trust Corel. Well they've done it again. Not only does this clause violate the GPL, it makes no sense. It is not like Linux is pornographic material. I guess maybe in some NT circles it is that or maybe it's "forbidden fruit."
Corel needs to re-examine what Open Source software means and they also need to fire a few lawyers while there at it.
Cough, cough. I told you so. Corel is bad for Linux.
exposed to the explicits in the source code than the flaws in windows.. hehe i mean, who wouldn't want their child to be reading kernel source code at such a young age. it's setting them up for a very bright future.
- A decent bit about how an OS and computer interact with each other
- The peace-of-mind gained through recent backups
- To always read the instructions on software installations.
And the last time you heard of a software vendor taking responsibility for anything their software did was..... when? Look at the last paragraph of almost any EULA and find out that the "(vendor) disclaims all warranties, whether implied or expressed, including merchantability or fitness for any purpose". Microsoft, Inprise, and a thousand other vendors claim no warranty at all without placing any explicit age limitations in their EULAs. And I know a good many (including myself) who experimented, at a young age, with Linux-based operating environments with very favourable results. Age doesn't innately breed intellect, patience, or wisdom. As someone who has worked the technical support desk when the reps are busy (I do network administration now), I can assure you that age has nothing to do with ignoring error messages, ignoring instructions, and completely trashing PCs. More than anything, it's experience. How are people to gain experience if liceneses start to prohibit them from using software that makes such an excellent learning tool? I really hate that term: "business world". Really.... what does it mean other than "we screw the little guy and pass the savings on to you!"? That sort of justification is precisely what the GPL has been developed to combat. Corel is missing the point of GPLed software, and the "spirit of Linux" in general. *Sigh* Is this really better than when Linux was just a "hacker's" OS? Corporate penetration and all, what has it gained us other than favourable words from ZD-Net and a bunch of suits asking for tech support from RedHat?From a Sun Microsystems bug report (#4102680):
Pining for the days when The Glorious MEEPT!!! graced SlapDash with his wisdom.
I'd be interested in hearing a quick overview of the legal implications of a business when the owner is a minor... do you become legally bound to contracts at that time? It seems like a sticky situation especially when dealing with large amounts of money and property.
You're missing the point completely. (Big surprise.) The point is, that if its not something that he would want his daughters to read, then its not something that he would want his daughters to download.
Ever heard of an 'R' rated movie? Same concept. And since you apparently aren't aware, you are required to be at least 18 to fulfill contractual obligation.
For future reference, please have the consideration to think before you post.
Could it be that Corel hasn't finished cleaned up foul language in the code?
http://www.logient.com
Because if they download it without agreeing to the EULA, Corel basically can charge that they stole the code (or however you want to call it, copyright violation, etc.).
For instance, a child creating a piece of art or literature owns the copyright to it, just like any other author. If someone finds the kid's collected works suitable for publication, the parents get to negotiate the contractual terms with the publisher, but they cannot allow publication against the wish of the child, nor can they dispose of the royalties as they see fit.
It happens that people register cars and other property as owned by their under-age children, as a form of tax evasion (it's generally frowned upon). I have no idea what the kids themselves think of this practice...
Who here really thinks that they can stop someone. Convincing someone that I am 18 on the net is about as easy as breathing.
i think i will just go get it now...*thumbs nose @ corel*--if it werent for my winmodem...
icq:=22921393;
In particular, the comment Watch out, it's not for the youngins!!! began discussion on this very matter.
My response was thus, and I'll repeat it...
In response to
I wrote:
This is also true in Canada, and is likely true in many other jurisdictions.
It's quite a dilemna; if they include components that have licensing agreements that require some degree of consent on the part of the user, they require an "adult's" consent.
It is particularly a problem for software that requires something like unto the "dastardly" MSFT EULA; it is less of an issue with Free Software, but even there, there is some need to be able to enforce the terms of GPL, XFree86 License, and other such licenses, and that can certainly be problematic for the young'uns.
A more pointed question, that isn't directly relevant to this particular situation:
Can a minor consent to release code under the GPL when they may not be legally able to establish contracts?
The fact that we might like the answer to be yes does not necessarily make it so...
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Yeah The lawyer doode is right, but i think corel is possibly violating the GPL at the same time.. so either way they're doing something they shouldnt, and because the hosting is in Canada, Ottawa acutally where i live, i think anyone that accepts the EULA is bound to our stupid canadian laws... Like the inability to smoke pot. anyway later all..
Okay, the above comment is short, with little new information... but come on, the story to which this is attached is ABOUT THIS MAN'S COMMENTS. That makes the above comment part of the FULL STORY. Maybe it should rate something other than a
"2"?
Actually, at least in Canada, minors can be held to contracts for necessities like shelter, food, etc.
This was because if you couldn't hold a minor to these things, minors would be unable to buy food, rent an apartment, etc.
If a minor could walk into a restaurant, eat, and leave without paying, legally, restaurants would, of course, stop serving minors without an adult.
So, minor can be held to these contracts.
I would imagine the USA has a similar rule.
BTW, the kid who wrecked the car would be out of luck because when he handed you the money an took the keys/papers, the contract was finished. He could get out of payments, but he couldn't get back the money he had already paid.
Speaking for US market only, for a moment, we are very concerned about our kids. And we should be. Our kids have every right to be protected.
Now, we can't protect them from everything, so they can get married at 18 without parents permission, which is cool. Same kids will have to wait three more years to salute with a glass of champaign, because they are not old enough to have a glass of wine before 21, but we all know it takes much less responsibility and maturity to make a family than to buy a can of beer. It is only logical.
Like most kids in the world, US patriots are welcome to fight and die for Queen (oops, wrong one...) and the country at age of 18, but cigarettes are just too big of a health risk for our underage fighters to be allowed.
Corel decided Linux is a good thing for our young generation. Once they become ready for all the Good Things (TM) society encourages them to do, they might as well enjoy Linux too. Three more years, and uncle Sam will allow them to have a pint of beer while they recompile the kernel. In the meantime, it is their constitutional right to shoot at the monitor if system doesn't boot.
Cheers to those over 21.
And my deepest respect and congratulation to underage generation, for keeping the teen pregnancy rate the highest in the world. You sure don't need computers and beer to have fun. Keep it up!
Some FTP sites won;t let you download if you are the 301st to try, did that bother you?
Some FTP sites won't let you download unless you give them your real email address, did that bother you?
Some FTP sites won't let you download unless you are in a certain country, did that bother you?
Some FTP sites now won;t let you download unless you are 18. This does bother you.
Bruce: if you want to force non-discrimination in distribution: ie: distribute no question asked:
PUT IT IN THE LICENSE TO YOUR SOFTWARE.
The GPL as it stands is quite a fickle licencing agreement, which I have read in full and understand at least some of it. On the otherhand I didn't read the corel licence at all, and didn't see a need to. As it works in a GPL+Any licence situation, things tend to go like this: If you change GPL'd code, the code is now under the GPL. You cannot have one line of 'any licence' code in a GPL file. If you put one line of GPL'd code into a program that is under 'any licence', the program is now under the GPL. If you want to use 'any licence' code and GPL code together and to retain their respective licences, you must not combine code. Compiling a object and linking the objects together is one form of this. That way they are distinct bit's of code but can be used together. As for corel's 'any licence', corel can force you to accept their licence which includes gpl code, BUT!!! corel must provide free access (excluding media) to all the non-any licence GPL code. So in a sense they are licencing their propritary code, which just happens to have some GPL stuff with it. Worst case all corel must do is rip out all their 'any licence' code and post the rest on a ftp site.
IANAL, but my dad is.
It's not enforcable civilly, but for the minor to do that would be a crime, so punishable similarly.
-Dave Turner
The purpose of requiring you to not be a minor is probably to make sure you can legally allow yourself to be bound to the agreement. Of course, if you're a minor, you can't legally be bound anyways, so you can't be considered to be doing anything wrong by downloading the software... right?
-- "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -Joseph Stalin
Therefore you can not legally accept the agreement if you are under 18.
John C. Worsley - Artist, Musician, Coder
Portfolio
This is a very interesting question, indeed. The answer may vary from country to country, but I expect that in most cases it will be simply: no.
In many countries, minors do not legally own anything. Everything belongs to their parents until they grow up and reach the age of 18 or so. So if you are a minor and you write a book, a musical masterpiece, or a very clever program, they all belong to your parents. From a legal point of view (this is all theoretical anyway), your parents are the only ones who have the rights to decide if the software should be released under the GPL or any other license.
Also, a license is a kind of contract, and both parties (the owner and the end user) have to agree to that contract before using or distributing the software. And that cannot be done by a minor.
Disclaimer: IANAL.
-Raphaël
So, you're saying that a minor can violate copyrights without any problems? So, there's no legal reason why Billy can't pirate games?
If the copyright has force, then the GPL rests on the agreement that you will do something in trade for the rights to the code.
The kid would be able to use GPL code, because the GPL doesn't prevent usage in any way.
But, the offer is made with the implicit assumption that the other party is capable of entering a contract.
If a car dealership prints a price on a car, you can make them sell you the car for that price because this is equivalent to you asking for a price, and them telling you. But, a minor could not get that car because the dealership wouldn't have made the offer to a minor.
So, no valid offer was extended to the minor, thus they can't enterer into a voidable contract, and they have no permission to rerelease the source code in any form.
This owuld be different if they asked for and received permission, because then the contract would have been intentionally extended to them despite their age.
But, even then, once they void the contract, the other party isn't held to their end anymore, except for whatever was due before the voiding.
Example, if a minor made payments, getting one item (volume on an encyclopedia) per payment, they could void the contract at any time and you would owe them any paid for but as yet undelivered volumes, but you wouldn't owe them the rest of the volumes. But, you wouldn't be able to hold any penalties against them.
This is why all (sensible) business for nonessential items with minors is done in a cash-up-front manner.
I'm not a lawyer, but we've been learning about this in my Business Law course that is taught by one.
Minors have an absolute right to void any contract into which they enter. That means that, to use the prof's example, if you sell your $20,000 car to a 17-year-old kid, he pulls out of the driveway and is immediately hit by a garbage truck which totally demolishes the car, he can immediately void the contract and get his money back and you're left with a $20,000 junkpile.
For this reason, many businesses would refuse to deal with minors at all, which causes problems for "liberated minors" who live on their own and have to buy certain things. This is covered by the Doctrine of Necessities, which states (IIRC) that certain businesses that sell neccesities have to deal with minors, and are legally entitled to "reasonable compensation" for their goods. These necessities include food, clothing, and utilities, and California adds TV and a car to that list (but then, that's California for you).
There have been cases of minors abusing this privilege--for example, my prof told about how his son built up a huge CD collection by joining BMG's "get so many CDs for $1" offer, then voiding the contract...multiple times. He also told about a minor who flew first class on an airline all over the place, then immediately voided the contract and cancelled the check after touching down.
The upshot is, businesses have to be cautious when dealing with minors...and you should be cautious, too, especially if one of them wants to buy your car. It's regrettable from the standpoint of "hey, kids have rights too!" people, but it's a legal necessity.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Now you know why Corel is so screwed up financially. They just don't know what they're doing. Crap like this coming from Corel is no surprise; it's to be expected.
Why an limitation over 18? ...
Should be an limitation to protect Dinos that still use Microsoft
C'mon are you really this dumb?
... tools... (siglim 120 chars)" Like cars... to the office no more no less.
301st to try is a matter of performance problems.
Real email address a way to deal with abuse.
Certain countries, well that slipped through.
18 it makes no sense and reeks of legal paranoia as opposed to the fact the GPL is a reaction to a real threat.
"Computers should be
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
As a minor, I would like to contradict that; I wallpapered my room with printed out copies of the GPL. I know every one of these license agreements by heart, including the McAfee one that prohibits reviews of the software without written consent from McAffe :-) But seriously, today's commercial licenses are stupid, filled with these little loopholes. If Corel's product was fully GPL'ed, then there would be almost nothing a minor could/would do to violate the GPL unless they were trying to. This actually applies to most non-programmers w/o CD-R drives. So when the GPL is in place, people's most common actions with software (redistribution of store-bought CDs, installing at home and work, etc.) are all fine. Not that the GPL is perfect. In Linus' own words (probably not exact though), "Linux sucks. It just sucks less than anything else out there." Same for the GPL. separate note: This is not the first time Corel is having licensing issues (dpkg and apt, anyone?). Probably the best thing to do is prove to them why you want the GPL. (also, do you think corel only made iso's of their linux to prevent the majority of minors w/o CD-Rs from using it? fine for them, lose all of us to straight debian.) error 127: this user does not have a internet client program. please download one at http://www.idiot.com. thank you.
As a Canadian lawyer, I think Corel's legal counsel is just caught up in oldthink. In brief, they fscked up on the licencing of their beta release and are just plain clueless about the Gnu World Order (patent pending).
I mean, some of the *developers* involved in the Debian distribution upon whose giant shoulders Corel is standing as a proud dwarf *are* minors.
Can't twist their tiny perfect minds with raw, uncensored code...
Of course, Jody Foster couldn't see Taxi Driver until she turned 18, even though she starred in it, which I regard as equally absurd. Maybe somebody will try to shoot Tux to impress her.
Corel's products are simply better than their counsel's advice.
The clause is redundant though. We can identify two statements:
1. Minors are not legally bound by contracts. (implicit)
2. Corel wants you to "sign" a contract certifying you're not a minor. (explicit)
So if I'm a minor, and certify that I'm an adult, I'm not legally bound to have been telling the truth. This makes the clause completely redundant.
"Certain countries" is also a matter of performance and possibly even of legality if american crappy crytpo-export regulations apply, btw.
And there *is* no reason for the 18yr-old limit, or "a minor" as it says. It's just as bad a way of eliminating the hand that fed them as the original license complaint was.
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
I am 15 and have been using linux since i was 14, and I'm not about to let this crap agreement slow me down. All I did was register using my father's name and credentials. Then i am being honest about the info, but I am using the software.
If they act outside the EULA (by breaking it) and copy the game, then they suddenly find the wrath of the SPA (and Feds) upon them. They no longer are breaking the contract, they are breaking the law.
(Breaking the Law... Breaking the Law...)
I'm not so sure that it isn't a violation. Here's a section from GPL version 2 (from my 2.2.12 kernel source): 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. --- The key part is b): it would appear that Corel is refusing to licence the program to minors. There are also some other bits around in the licence about not limiting freedom. I don't know whether a minor can legally count as a third party, though, so Corel might not be in violation. I'm pretty sure that you can't restrict any legal third parties (even if it contains, say, strong encryption or swear words - there is a provision lower down that says that if you can't legally distribute according to the requirements of the licence then you can't distribute at all). Just my 2 cents.
I've helped them out a few times, but they fail to learn anything. I can't help them any longer.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
As someone falling into the 'boring old fart' age bracket I can understand the legal reasons for this but I personally find it totally unacceptable - somehow it must be changed. For the paranoid it would seem that the lawers are affraid of the 'Rubics Cube Syndrome' - if a logic problem is too difficult for 'adults' give it to a minor to solve. Perhaps the children of parents who work at Corel could go on 'video machine' strike - change the rules or we won't program your video :-))
You aren't quite aware of contract law and the fact that in most countries, minors are not legally bound to contracts. Since you apparently are not intelligent enough to figure that out (well, since you're 16, intelligence is not quite right, ignorance is a better description) you have to realize that they have simply explicitly stated what contracts in these countries inherently assume. So take offense from my comment, but don't take offense from the Corel EULA (especially if you believe it to be unintentional).
Anybody who wants to download it, will.
All the kids who are scared off by the legalese can just order the $5 distro CD - with their forged credit card numbers. =)
It's such a trivial thing, why does everybody get all riled up over it?
Are they trying to piss everyone off? First it was the fiasco with the license for the beta, and now this? They must be crazy. No other distribution has pulled such ridiculous stunts yet (AFAIK). Just my $0.02
It's a restriction that violates the GPL license. "How much" it violates the license is irrelevant.
You missed the point completely.
Anyone can decide who downloads, for reasons that are relevant only to the owner of the FTP site.
Some don't want to bog their nets, so they set user limits.
Some don't want anonymity, so they ask for real emails.
Some don't want foreigners using their site, so they enforce country.
Some don't want minors, for reasons that are not really known to us, so they ask if you are 18.
Hell, someone could decide "I'll let you download
if you pay me $5". WALNUT CREEK USED TO DO THAT.
They had special named accounts for paying customers.
Get it now?
...your far more insightful comment is still only zero - where's the justice?
Bruce Perens.
Business Law 101. The licence agreement is not valid if a party is under 18. Never enter into a contract with someone who is under 18 or you will lose your shirt.
Linux is not suited for anyone, unless they are willing to learn how to program in C, write scripts, and operate an OS more complex than OS/400. Why not buy a Mac and use OSX instead? It will save you the headache and even 6 year old kids can install it without adult supervision.
Sure. Now that you said it breaks the GPL, I'll have to change my mind.
Listen: show me why this is a breach of the GPL, and I'll be happy to sue, since Corel is distributing code I OWN, and is licensed under the GPL.
Now, I DO NOT see where the breach is. So I right now believe threatening to sue is stupid.
Some other Open Source licenses are tear-open contracts, but the GPL is not. It's a straight copyright permission.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
The first principle of contract law is the old Latin phrase "nemo dat quod non habet", which translates as "You can't sell what you don't own".
The Gnu software licence leaves the copyright of the software to its *creator*. Hence, that hypothetical minor has no legal right to convey ownership (as opposed to free use) of the software, and the hypothetical distributor would be in exactly the same position of ownership as you would be if you bought the Brooklyn Bridge from anyone else than Rudolph Giuliani.
I promise not to critique source code if you promise not to give legal analysis. Besides, lawyers have to pay large premiums for malpractice. Developers just look silly in front of their friends...
but I am not a lawyer either.
If a minor makes the contract non-binding, then they are probably violating the law though copyright violations when they d/l the code.
first they put it up only in iso format, then they make it illegal for me to download. i'll never use they distro now
Hmmm, just interested to see that there are minor aged.....I didn't know that there were that many under 18s developing programs. I've only got a few months to join the club...
When you become an 'adult', you'll find that there are plenty of laws that have been enacted because of 'the few' to protect/limit the actions of 'the many'.
...
This is nothing new, and has nothing to do with age. It's a consequence of the way our legal system works.
By the same argument, you could be saying "how dare our government enact a law making it illegal for adults to have sex with underaged teenagers - do they think that *all* of us adults wants to have sex with underage teenagers? This is *OUTRAGEOUS*!"
So you'd better get used to it, kiddo. It's a permanent thing.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Being 16 myself I hate running into or even hearing about "clauses" or laws that inhibit MY freedom of choice as a human being. Corel if your listening ask your self this: How many do you employ are a minor? and How many of your top notch people started their knowledge quest into the computer realm before turning 18? Take a good look at your stupidity and resolve it!
Lets assume that you are right, Erik, and minors can take GPL'd code and sell/give it to a company to make it into a proprietary product.
.{redmist}.
Could'nt one make the arguement that the company that buys/recieves that code accepts the license that is attatched to the code?
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
I sware at any computer that gives me a problem. If you listen to me around linux I am a G rating, if I am around a windows box NC-17. I'm 15, 16 at the end of March, and it is interesting to read the EULA sometimes.
I think that reason is quite simple -
I don't think a minor would be legally bound to this EULA if it were to go to court. Since you're assumed to be dumb and stupid and incapable to make decisions until you reach that magical age of 18. Until then, your parents need to sign releases for school trips, and everything else really.
I am not saying I am agreeing with any it, just that from a lawyer point of view (which I am not), this clause might be a good idea.
Woah, slow down! Now I would agree that their lawyers are incompetant when it comes to GPL/Free Software law, but this can be fixed. They need new lawyers who will actually read and understand the issues involved and make a more sane license. We can still infuse them with clue, I wouldn't cut my losses quite yet.
Also they are a Canadian company, there may be different laws there that require this kind of verbage in their license. For example, in the US, a minor cannot enter into a contract--maybe in Canada a software license is considered a contract?
In any event, take a chill pill and lets see what is going on. Hey, maybe you can get hired as a consultant for their license, seeing as how you recently helped Novell. Problem turns into opportunity.
-- Remember: Wherever you go, there you are!
I think the whole lawsuit scare in the US (as seen from the European point of view) has gotten out of hand.
If you consider such urban legends as the "Do not put pets in the microwave"-lawsuit or the case of the burnt legs by McD-coffee, it's no wonder that EULAs or disclaimers get longer and longer every time you try to download/install something.
The legend I like best is the "Point away from face when opening"-label on champagne-bottles. (Don't know whether this is actually true)
________________________________
If encryption is outlawed, only
________________________________
If encryption is outlawed, only
YIE565$FF DSDNE4!MJK XMY7*fRBVM.
Without trying to defend Corel (I admire their work with Linux but they haven't quite gotten the spirit of the Linux community down pat yet...), is there an age limit of 17 by which you can't enter into a legally binding contract? A license agreement is a contract of sorts so it would make sense that if you're 17 and under you can't bind into such a contract. Okay, that's legal crap, but then Corel is a commercial entity that has their own legal team and is trying to cover their butts from all angles. I do hope they see this and try to find a happy medium though...
Well it could be a mistake. Can someone contact Corel for that?
Another possible idea is that Corel wants to avoid script kiddies, many of them are minor age (no offense I'm a minor to) and wants a serious reputation for their OS. Another idea is that they are afraid that kids are irresponsible and will ruin their parents' computer by installing Linux on it and do not want to be liable.
Whatever the reason is, if that is deliberate, it's an outrage and if it's a mistake, it must be corrected. Can someone please contact Corel?A friend of mine installed this distro... guest what, even with a full install... well... NO kernel source.... pretty cool hey!
Unix is user friendly... it just chooses it's friends selectively!!
Damn... I was putting togather a nice Linux roundup on my site, I am getting around 5 different Linux distibutions to review.. to bad im a minor.. looks like I cant review it, I guess that means that Corel Linux lost
An ex-cow-orker described it as Microsoft's Friggin' Kludge.
One conceivable reason for the over-18 stipulation has to do with the legal binding in the EULA -- since for the most part minors aren't (legally) considered capable of making any decisions, having them click a button agreeing to a license agreement doesn't necessarily make the EULA binding as it would be with an adult.
IOW, the American government's approach to dealing with minors sucks, as if that point needed any more reinforcement.
In other words, the GPL doesn't permit you to impose extra restrictions even by claiming you're forced to- if it's illegal for you to conform to the GPL, there's simply no way for you to distribute GPL'd software.
though I m an adult nowadays, this seems like a bad taste joke...
Any chance this is fake?
I really would like to find out how they 'll justify it.
Kids actually produce "intellectual property" throughout their childhood, from the point when they begin making simple crayon drawings. These early works of art seldom get any publicity outside direct family and friends, and licensing terms thus aren't an issue.
Things may change in school, as they start writing essays that are read in class, or even submitted to various contests where they may find a wider audience. Legally speaking, their parents must consent to any public use of their work, but for practical purposes I believe parents are presumed to have given implicit permission for most creative activities that normally take place in school. At least my parents were never asked to sign a contract before I, at the age of 16, performed the traditional piano piece for a full aula at summer break-up (in Sweden, age of consent is 18). We even produced a musical and performed for a paying audience. Those who were still under 18 at the time we went to Denmark for a visiting performance (1980) were required to obtain parental permission in order to spend a late evening in Copenhagen, but nobody ever questioned their freedom to show off their artistic abilities for no monetary compensation at all...
As for contributing to the GNU project, I think parental consent is an acceptable inconvenience. In case some parents explicitely disallow their kid from writing free software on the grounds that they want him to profit from his skills instead, I'm sure slashdotters will be the first to hear about it, and then we can discuss what to do about it.
Then again, maybe someone will interpret the prohibitions against child labour in an innovative way, and compare the FSF with some Asian textile producer taking advantage of slave labour... After all, weren't the Wiener Sängerknaben prohibited from giving performances during christmas and other major holidays? I'd like to see someone collect and distribute software that has been designed and implemented by minors exclusively (of course with parental consent)! A quality mark, sort of.
"Anyone can decide who downloads, for reasons that are relevant only to the owner of the FTP site." I suggest you decrease the dosage of whatever interesting medication you're on, because your posts have been some of the strangest things I've ever read.
These reasons are acceptable -- age isn't. As an admin and someone faithful to the precepts of the Free Software movement, I feel I can connect with this, but you are having difficulty doing that.
User limits make sense. Nobody can download if the site ends up with a throughput of 1b/s.
Asking for e-mails makes sense. When people repeatedly abuse, attack, and flood your server, you have to fight back.
As for the country restrictions, it's not always a matter of PREFERENCE, friend. Ever heard of export regulations? Try boning up on your world affairs.
Requiring someone to be a minor, however, is an abomination. My younger brother has a copy of Microsoft Windows legally licensed, according to their EULA, but Caldera's Linux distribution requires you to be 18, so you can verify that the license applies to you? Get real people, I think not.
I wholeheartedly disagree with everyone who thinks we should be nice to Caldera -- they've trampled the rights of the Free Software / Linux community, and if they are allowed to do so, other companies will follow suit. What will be of your beloved GPL then? Nothing. It'll be a meaningless collection of bites on a hard drive.
I suspect this is yet more Corel "standard boilerplate" stupidity - In many places, contracts with minors aren't binding on them (but are on you) so Corel would be justified in restricting licencing of products they want the licence to be enforcable on to those that they can hope to do so with. The fact that this is their Open Source licence and standard rules don't apply (I am sure you all remember the Recent screwup over a non-GPL for the beta) seems to be hard to install into the mindset of their legal department. I will Email Corel Politely and let them know - you never know, they may even post a reply here..... :+)
--
-=DaveHowe=-
Well, if it's part of the EULA that you can't use it if you're a minor *because* you're not bound to the EULA, doesn't that basically mean that you *can* download it anyway, since you can legally break the EULA?
Last time I checked, the GPL contains something about not discriminating against any person or group of people...
Sounds like it violates the GPL to me.
Since Linux is just like every other drug - dangerous for those little people that need to be protected from the forces of evil and guided towards the light side - it is perfectly understandeable that this clause is in Corels EULA. Hey how about disallowing computer use for minors in general (Or maybe just free software cause it doesnt follow capitalist traditions, which must be installed into the next generations). I think 18 is not enough let them
;-) Need a linux prohibition anyone?)
get 21 till they get to ride that wicked kernel.
Corel is just stupid on this one. Have they not understood that you need to get kids addicted early to make the addiction last a lifetime?
Just like with guns show them early that you need to be paranoid and protective and whoahey the signs of fear will show up when grown up too. God for the national economy that (sells guns and
lowers the social security expenses).
Woops, gotten offtopic but am in rant mood (Hung over cause European
"YOU CERTIFY THAT YOU ARE NOT A MINOR ..." How does this work? If you agree you are not a minor you are agreeing to a contract. Yet being a minor makes that contract impossible. So this line has no reason to be in the contract, since if you were a minor you couldn't agree to the contract anyway.
Minor's (at least in the US) cannot sign off for themselves (stupid law, but c'est la vie). Therefore, I would assume that when they also agree to a licence it isn't legal. This may just be part of the liability for things like the F-word in the Kernel source, etc...
Maybe it was just overlookd when they didn't put a parental permission clause in there...after all, how much time has corel really spent on this? Not much compared to their other products I'd assume.
Then again, it might just be part of the crusade to abolish all people under 18's right (I'm not a minor citezen, I'm just oppressed).
That's my $(2^4*3+1/7%3*2/100)
--Justin Mitchell
"2nd Place is a fancy word for losing" --Bender (Futurama)
I agree with the first poster that this is almost certainly to ensure that the downloader is legally responsible to become a party to the license.
This would appear to be against the non-discrimination clause of the DFSG, but on the othr hand, what is the alternative? You can't ask someone to make a legally binding agreement who cannot legally enter a legally binding agreement.
To copy anything under GPL involves acceptance of the license, so my guess is that minors already need parental permission to copy GPL licensed (or any free) software.
I don't see that the 'if any part of this agreement is illegal the rest still applies' clause helps either.
Interesting, but inconvenient.
"These reasons are acceptable -- age isn't."
To you. You are not the one deciding. Your opinion doesn't matter at all.
"As an admin and someone faithful to the precepts of the Free Software movement, I feel I can connect with this, but you are having difficulty doing that."
I have no trouble seing what pissed off Bruce. I also have no trouble seing it is totally legal.
"Ever heard of export regulations? Try boning up on your world affairs."
Oh, grow up.
"Requiring someone to be a minor, however, is an abomination."
Corel is not requiring someone to be a minor.
And: PRECISELY WHAT PART OF THE GPL DOES NOT GIVING YOU A PROGRAM BREAK?????
I'll say it again: I have a copy of Corel Linux. I will not give it to YOU. Have I broken the GPL?
If yes: HOW?
If no: in what way is it different from Corel's position?
Using "bad language in the sources" as an excuse for this is plain silly. If a person actually wants to read the source, its because he or she gets something from reading it. And if can read and understand the source I think you are quite capable of handling the obsceneties(sp?) nomatter what age you might be
I for one cannot think of a single reason as to WHY someone would want to limit the use of their distribution.
this just defies all logic
larva
-- gunzip-howto.tar.gz
I'm sure the children of kernel-source-viewing world thank you, and the other contenders for first post are probably jealous (well, they would be if you had actually gotten first post.. perhaps next time, you shouldn't "count your chicks before they hatch")
Insert mind here.
A lot of the software contributors were legal minors at the time they contributed the software, and some of them still are, and Corel accepted _their_ licenses. Should those contributors now turn around and say they had no legal right to give Corel those licenses and thus they are void? Or shall we assume that they had the collusion of their parent or guardian and thus the licenses are legal, in which case Corel should make the same assumption in their license?
Bruce Perens.
I'll tell you which part of the GPL --
The section which discusses not discriminating against any person or group of persons. It's very clear in the GPL that is not tolerated, and discrimating again minors, which would be a group, violates that clause.
To quote directly from the GPL:
"To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all."
The key word here is everyone. Limiting its access from minors !=everyone.
In Sweden, public performance and rental of artistic works are among the things you need the artist's approval to do. It doesn't matter whether the copy you have was obtained under a legally binding contract; normally you can't put any video recording in a VCR and show it to an audience beyond your direct family and friends without permission from the copyright holder.
If a label on the copy says "Not for rental", it's first and foremost a statement of fact and a reminder of what the law implies, failing a license or a permission to the contrary. It may optionally form part of the text of a license agreement, but even if there is no agreement, copyright law still holds.
I've hardly ever bought or rented a video. I don't think I've ever seen a DVD product. Are you saying they come with an explicit "end-user license agreement" which you are considered bound by when you buy or open the product, or are you merely inferring this from those restrictive labels you have seen?
Or, could it be that U.S. copyright legislation is actually extremely weak, meaning that you can take any audio recording and play it for the thousands listening to your private radio station, simply because your copy was legally bought in an ordinary record store? Somehow I doubt it...
And no, I'm not a lawyer either; I cannot provide legal advice. All my advice is strictly illegal!
grep "fuck" * -r
Stuff Snipped
lib/vsprintf.c: * Wirzenius wrote this portably, Torvalds fucked it up
www.mp3.com/Undocumented
Oh come off it. If you're not over 18, in the USA, then you're not legally able to enter into a legally binding contract. That they put a clause in the license stating the obvious is meaningless. They probably wanted to protect themselves from the possibility of someone under 18 ripping off their code and making it proprietary or somesuch. Problem is, if someone is going to break the law it doesn't matter how old they are, they will do it anyway. So it's a lawyer screw up, nothing more.
Judging by the previous antics at Corel it appears that they have a major problem with inter-departmental communication and the 'over 18' clause seems like an obvious mistake.
With the dozens of Linux distributions available to anyone at any age this will severely limit it's acceptance.
I will be utterly amazed if this clause is intentional.
Thankfully if you do not like a particular distribution you can always go elsewhere.
So, if the clause is intentional (unlikely) - don't worry about it, use a different distribution!
This also raises issues of the future quality of products Corel will be releasing (as a result I am not really that enthusiastic about them anyway).
You're missing the point. When things like this are just let slide, they grow ever-more legitimized. The problem isn't that people ACTUALLY fear that this silly EULA is ACTUALLY going to stop kids from downloading Linux-- it's that they (well, at least some of us... well, at least MYSELF) see that once stuff like this becomes legitimized, it opens the door to a legitimized and publically accepted out-and-out ban on GNU/Linux (and other OSes?) use by "minors", distribution by distribution by distribution.
Or, to put it another way-- can you imagine what would happen if you had to be 18 to install Windows? What would the mundanes say?
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
- If Corel must impose extra terms and restrictions onto GPLed software, then the GPL forbids them to be a channel for the distribution of said GPLed software,
- Corel are doing this for reasons of their own, possibly even compelled to do this for reasons of corporate liability or some such compulsion,
- therefore Corel do not have a right to ship a Linux under these conditions, because the GPL _requires_ that they not add or remove restrictions, and no other license is available for their use for much of the Linux distribution.
This is certainly a drag for Corel, particularly if their corporate rules didn't allow them any wiggle room and they were compelled to try and add the age restriction, but unfortunately they're stuck- no corporation would want to weaken the binding force of contracts and license agreements in general. Unless Corel can stick exactly 100% to the GPL license agreements, they are _hosed_ and it says outright they can't use GPLed stuff in a distorted form. They could distort and change the _software_ all they want but they cannot change the rules without weakening all contract law- if you can disregard the GPL, then it'd be just as legal to disregard their own EULA, or Microsoft's EULAs, etc. ad infinitum.Perhaps Microsoft would like to donate several billion to the FSF to fight Corel with, thus keeping contract and license law solid and binding? MS or any huge corp. would _hate_ to think that its licenses and binding agreements were subject to being overruled if inconvenient. It's interesting to think that on this point, commercial software would actually defend the GPL like rabid wolverines. They may not _use_ the GPL, but to question the ability of a software license to be binding and relevant? They'd back it to the limit, because if the GPL gets weakened, their OWN licenses would end up just as weak.
I remember going into FVWM for the first time and think how cool it was, I have been using linux for 3 years now , and if some stupid restriction like that had been on my distro of choice at the time , I probably wouldn't have gotten into linux.
I've never heard of this before, what is it? I've used and developed for Linux for 3 years and never heard of this.
Here's why they don't want minors, because they can't hold a minor legally responsible for EULA violations in court, only an adult.
Why not say, with adult's permission? Because now they have to actively get that adult's permission, and verify their status. Which == pain in the ass.
It's not like you're violating the EULA if you download Corel Linux when you're minor. You can't violate it. It doesn't apply to you.
--Vito
What patent is involved here?
What part of the GPL talks about discrimination?
grep -i discri COPYING
returns nothing.
Think. Carefully. The GPL covers distribution of software. Corel is saying they are not distributing it. For that to be a breach of the GPL, you must find me a place in the GPL where it says "you should distribute this software to anyone that asks". You won't find it.
You would also "win" if you find somewhere where it says something to the effect of "you should not discriminate on who you distribute this software to, on basis of age race or gender". But that's not there either.
And the point of attacking my grammer would be?
Ryan Dorman, CCNA Network Communications Specialist Millersville Univesrity
What sort of trollish nonsense is this? You seem to be making the point that since some of the laws pertaining to children are designed to protect them from being exploited, they're all okay. This is patently false. The problem is that children are powerless-- the fact that they were powerless in the first place was what opened the doors to people to use them for forced labor, which directly (supposedly) led to the child labor laws to which you seem to be alluding...
Those same child labor laws ALSO make it illegal for children who LEGITIMATELY want to work-- for one, I did, when I was 12, and I'm sure there are others like me out there-- to follow their wishes. Child labor law goes about things all the wrong way. Just as it's stupid to ban all alcohol use under 21 (including responsible alcohol use!), it's stupid to ban all work under 14/16/18/whatever it is in your county (including VOLUNTARY, PAID work). US law-- and, I'd wager to say, law in general-- has a long history of being dogged and heavy-handed and highly conservative, and this is no different.
In any case, what does this silly comment of yours have to do with the fact that kids can't download Corel Linux? Does your praise of child labor law somehow also equate to automatic acceptance of the laws that make it legitimate for Corel to refuse children their useful OS? If so, how?
Somebody moderate this guy down, please!
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
True, but what OpenSource group in its right mind would enforce this? If my thinking is right, no action could be taken against the minor (or his/her parents) unless the copyright holder initiates it (which they probably wouldn't do).
--Aaron Plattner
We've got the offended section of the EULA attached below.
Honestly, first we get an article about patenting your computer's inventions, now we get one where a document is complaining about it's own content! Can you not see the terrifying consequences?!
The memes are turning upon us! The memes are turning upon us!!
(IWIIHTETIS? - in case of emergency, expand acronym. At poster's option, post may be archived as an example of caffeine-induced psychosis. )
--
I am 16, and i am gonna install it and write corel's linux team a message FROM IT just to piss them off.. I hate it when big companies think theyre big shit and change things they have no right to. FUCK em!
I havent been keeping up on the corel linux news, they will rls the source right?
Those who are bringing up Corel's probable reason for doing this, are bringing up the fact that no contract with a "minor" can be legally binding. This is quite irrelevent due to current common practice. The contents of a disk (i.e. software) is just like the contents of a book (i.e. a novel)-- both are "intellectual property", quite copyable but illegal to copy.
WHEN was the last time that you had to be 18 to purchase a (non-pornographic) book?
Even in the software world-- other than "adult" titles, when was the last time you had to be 18 to download a piece of software? An -operating system-, no less?
I think that we should talk to Corel about this and try to get them to change their ways.
--Caspian
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
Requiring someone to be a minor, however, is an abomination. My younger brother has a copy of Microsoft Windows legally licensed, according to their EULA, but Caldera's Linux distribution requires you to be 18, so you can verify that the
... tools... (siglim 120 chars)" Like cars... to the office no more no less.
license applies to you? Get real people, I think not. I wholeheartedly disagree with everyone who thinks we should be nice to Caldera -- they've trampled the rights of the Free Software / Linux community, and if they are allowed to do so, other companies will follow suit. What will be of your beloved GPL then? Nothing. It'll be a meaningless collection of bites on a hard drive.
The problem is Corel at the moment. Second I think it's time Corel read their own licenses. I w ould settler out of court if they could provide positive proof of that.
"Computers should be
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Not really, I think the liability is limited to about NOK 1000,- ($200-$250 ?).
If you behave badly enough, your parents won't be allowed to care for you anymore. And you will get forster parents; usually idealistic gitar-playing socialists with purpla scarfs, which make you eat vegetables and fish on a regular basis. (Scared straight - Norwegian style).
For computer crimes, they'll probably force you to use Windows for several months. (Although you can probably complain to the human-rights commision in Geneve for this cruel and unusual punnishment).
-- Tov Are Jacobsen
Under 18? No accountability IF the parents don't "co-sign" (pardon the less than ideal expression for it) for the kid?
We do good, cheap web hosting. Unfortunately the only problem customers we ever have are the 18- "kiddies" who won't even be accountable to what they say.
New on my TOS? Under 18, send parents' permission. The last ISP I worked for required parents to sign if the kid wanted a dialup account! I worked there and had to get my parents to sign. Big whoop!
This is just plain silly, and like much in the way of license restrictions, is impossible enforce, and undesirable if it could be enforced.
And what's the beef anyway? I can understand pr0n web sites trying this on, they have to, or they'd get stomped by our detestable and self appointed moral guardians. But Linux? It's only an operating system, it can't deprave, corrupt, or otherwise harm the young and impressionable.
Ahhh, nostalgia, my very earliest memory is seeing a computer maze program when I was about four or five, in 1976. It was so early on in my psychological development I didn't understand the the perspective drawing, even if I could understand the view of the maze from above. By eight I was coding, and have been doing so ever since (hmmmm, the Jesuits didn't get me at that important age, but computers did, a geek for life I guess). It's just plain shocking to think that such an upbringing could be considered something to deny the current generation of young coders.
So the question is, what exactly is going on in the fevered imaginations of Corel's lawyers? Any ideas anyone?
-- "This is the Space Age, and we are Here To Go" - W.S.Burroughs
to me this is stating the obvious. all minors that i know don't even read the first line of the license agreement. im pretty sure no minor is actually going to think twice about downloading this product.
i seriously hope corel considers this.
my two cents,
tyler
So everyone says, ignore it because their stupid corporate morons, what else would you expect them to do? When stupid corporate morons do something idiotic, you are supposed to let them know (loudly, preferably).
The current Slashdot moderation system is made by gay communists!
This strikes me as a bit of legal-ese that covers Corel's corporate-hidebound ass. Forget about it.
Looks like, as with the Beta test form, Corel simply copied "boilerplate" from something else.
Think About This Scenario:
Big Company Wants to Fork LINUX non GPL:
1. Big Company Hires 14 Year Old Kid
2. 14 Year Old Kid Downloads LINUX Source
3. 14 Year Old Kid Sells It To Company for $1000
4. Big Compnany Starts Marketing Own LINUX under BSD License (or whatever)
Why is this possible you say? Well, technically since the kid is 14, then he can download LINUX Score and the GPL doesnt' bind to him [Remember, you have to be 17/18/19/20/21 - depends on where you are - before you can enter a legally binding contract.
mmm. I just thought of this, what if we get like 10-12 year old to download say SSH and SCP and Cyrpto stuff like that and then export it. I mean the get it and then ftp it overseas. Since they are only 10-12, the are not able to agree to not expert right? and also, doesn't those laws apply to adults only?
-- Note: These Comments are Generated by ME! Not You! ME!
A license agreement isn't law. You have to agree to it to be bound to it (and if you don't agree to it, then you have no right to use the product covered by the license). But in most countries, a minor can't enter into legally binding agreements. However, minors are still bound by laws.
Are you certain about this? Does this mean that the same 16-year old can walk into CompUSA, buy a copy of Windows and isn't bound by the EULA, so he can make and sell as many copies as he wants, since Microsoft didn't bother to check whether he was able to enter into a contract?
There's something about that that doesn't sound right, but if it's true, there's a pretty lucrative career for anyone under 18?
It is more likely that, since GPLed software is copyrighted, nobody is allowed to copy it unless they do so under license. If someone cannot agree to the GPL because of his age, he cannot copy or derive works from the software. But I think someone already mentioned that.
I suppose that the GPL enforces the distributor to provide ALL the sources in a physical medium, for a nominal charge if they like. So all the debian packages MUST be _offered_ on CD. Does Corel do that?
Of course, no condition of being "minor" must be put in that license according to GPL.
--exa--
And the kid could use format and a win98 cd, presto, no more pesky NetNanny. Or Regedit. Can microsoft be sued for that?
That's wacky. Its like a state (say Alabama for instance) declares that selling PCs is illegal because a pervert could download child-porn.
The current Slashdot moderation system is made by gay communists!
5.No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
I suspect the language is there in the Corel EULA because minors cannot (usually?) be bound by contract. Of course, since buying just about anything is agreeing to a license (copyright, patent, conditions of sale, etc.) I have to imagine that minors cannot legally live! Darn interesting topic, I just wish I had more to say.
Oh, yeah: IANAL.
That aside, I'm still somewhat concerned about the word "license", since I tend to interpret that as indicating the presence of a contractual relationship (as in "a license to produce Coca-Cola"); such a license is usually considered revokeable. Also a "license to hold a TV set" or a "license to use a gun" (European concepts) can be revoked, even though they are intended for "end users" rather than some contractually bound producer in the middle. One aspect of free software is that nobody should be able to revoke the freedoms already given. A "non-revokeable license" is probably our best option for now, but I'm not entirely satisfied with that language. The "License" in the GPL should probably be associated with expressions such as "artistic license", but there doesn't seem to be very many of those expressions.
So, could this solution solve the problem also for Corel (if there is a problem at all)? If people are simply permitted to download Corel's distribution without them having to agree to anything, will their age and legal capability still matter?
However, any minor wishing to contribute free code to some software project (GPL'ed or not) would still need parental consent for that, unless I have overlooked another legal loophole.
No let's over-react and flame everyone in the republic. Oops, okay. This strikes me as a bit of legal-ese that covers Corel's corporate-hidebound ass. Forget about it. Next!
You used Linux when you were 13 and installed at 16? You fucking dork!
They (Corel) must be concerned that they can't make this contract legaly binding if they user is a minor.
As most of us probably know a minor cannot enter into a legaly binding contract. This probably scares Corel because if a minor downloads "their" OS and violates the EULA there is not much that Corel can do about it.
Funny I never thought of it before but, this would mean that a kid can go down to his local software store, and buy a game. Since said person is a minor, and cannot enter into a legal agreement, he could distrubute this software freely and there really isn't much that could be done to him/her. However his/her friends had better be minors also or the "violated" company is gonna find someone to hang for it.
is that a .deb I can download from your homepage??????
The current Slashdot moderation system is made by gay communists!
Bruce,
we all understand how you feel. But it's time to forgive and forget and move on. We all make mistakes. It's time to let bygones be bygones and continue the excellent work you've been doing. Commercial vendors are new to the open source MO, if they don't have people like you helping them, who will.
Remember, Don't give up the fight for freedom! But remember, too, this fight does not include law "suits".
Your truly,
AC
The majority of ppl watching porn mvoies are under 18.
Just another trick!
Lost Carrier
Lost Carrier
http://www.geekboys.org
The open source principal of Linux is to make source avaliable to all. I'm 15 and I'd kinda like to get the source to play with. (Since they can't hold me to the contract because I'm a minor and I don't really care, I might just download it anyways or have my parents do it) They are defeating the very purpose of the open source movment. It's very ironic since many people under 18 have helped devolp Linux into what it is. They should change their ways, or find someone else who isn't a minor to get thier source from so they aren't being so damn ironic. Domo Arigato
Don't call my crazy, that's what they called me back in the home!
Minors racking up enormous phonebills by trying to download the file over a 28.8kbps link?
By that virtue, all license agreements would be void for minors - or at least the software contract style ones, right? Maybe it's a fat chance, but could minors legally buy a copy of Windows 98, copy it around, reverse engineer it, and modify it w/o violating a license agreement they were never bound by?
It's interesting. I'm not a lawyer. Who is? :)
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
OK, assume this is there because minors can't be held responsible to uphold a contract. Now, to fix this, we say minors can't use the product. Does nobody else see a loophole here? Anyone who can't use Corel Linux because they are too young according to the contract, doesn't have to listen to the contract. If that statement does anything, it points out that a user who is a minor doesn't have to obey any of the User Licence.
This is silly. At most the contract was a misguided attempt to insure the contractee was able to enter into a binding agreement. Pretty common meaningless wording over extended as far as I see. No nefarious plot here.
Notice that it doesn't say "18", it merely states that one must be at or beyond majority. This is because minors can not be legally bound by contracts, which the EULA is.
People can and will violate rules when the reason seems like nonsence. With law you don't get that kind of freedom. You have to challange nonsence.
With that clarifyed I'll repeate and agree with your sentiments...
After X users an FTP site becomes overloaded so an FTP site refuses connections after X point...
A United States site carrying crypto may chouse to enforce national bounderys due to crypto paranoia laws in the United States.
But denying minnors access to a Linux destro based on a misguided understanding of the law is nonsence and should be challanged.
As for the traffic and crypto issues... get rid of the stupid crypto laws and use mirror sites.
I don't actually exist.
I am sure that up in Redmond, Linux in any form is considered to be Pornographic. With the Federal Govenment attempt at laws forbidding minors from accessing pornography on commercial sites, Corel could be trying to cover their *ss so as to keep Redmond off their *ss. /. could request Corel to give /. a formal reply as to why they have this clause. Just because it may look like poor judgement, in todays sue happy society, they just may have a completely valid and fully justifiable reason. Then again they may not.... either way it would be interesting to see a post of their reasoning.
Maybe
Microsoft calles MFC Microoft Foundation Classes.
Thank you, I'm glad you're here to tell me these things.
;-)
(I only tortured my self with MFC for about one month... and while it is quite incomprehensible, at least I got the name right.)
-
__
Comment submitted. There will be a delay before you understand what you posted.
... then the 18, years clause would not be binding either. So what's the point?
Say no to software patents.
It was a joke (minor/miner). Admittedly, a very bad one. Sorry to offend. (I also apologize to anyone who does mining for a living - it was in bad taste.) I am SLOfuse.
So the license states that I am not allowed to download it if i am under 18?
:)
If i am under 18, I am not legally bound by that license...
So... i just download it anyway, seeing as, legally, there is not a thing they can do about it.
I am sure the board if film/tv/etc ratings has not classified this distribution as 18+ so..
Where's the problem?
smash
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Sad, yet true. They look at Linux/Open Source as some sort of radical group trying to bring chaos to the order -- the "order" being Windows/Microsoft. Hell, my dad's even on Microsoft's side! "They make a good product, the product sells really big. They're not a monopoly!" As we can see here he has no idea what he's talking about *g* but I just let it go. I'm tired of arguing with them.
I even asked for Slack 7 for Christmas...I already know I'm not going to get it.
Hence I think this clause was made in the best interest of the parents. The parents, who don't understand (therefore fear) Linux/Open Source. It's a stupid rule, and it'll probably make more -18 year olds download it anyway, just to spite them. Maybe that's what they're hoping will happen, I don't know. But it sounds to me like the folks at Corel who made this dumb rule are parents with Linux-enthusiastic kids. And they know other parents with the like. And all these parents have been using Windows for eons, and, "it never locks up for me!" It's the kids who use the computers 10x more than the parents, so they know how unstable a piece of trash like Windows really is, being that they use it more. If the parents did, then they'd understand the sudden rush to Linux. But since they don't, they'll never, and stupid rules like this will continue to exsist.
Parents. They just don't understand.
Luckily, for future reference, I have a nursing home right behind my house *g*
miyax
This is probably one of the greatest publicity stunts in the computer-business. 1) They get attention. 2) It's more fun doing something you can't. Helgi.
The problem with the Corel Linux, EULA, is contract law itself, the whole thing with minors not being able to sign contracts, was thought up to protect younger children from signing away their lives or something along those lines, also it was used to keep kids from being forced into marriages, and indentured servitude (is that redundant?) However today in the United States, it mostly just keeps teens from acheiving the financial freedom for their own money. It keeps people under 18 from bank accounts, decent jobs (often sales positions and technical positions require contracts of some sort, sometimes consent to a drug test. This is why many young actors get emancipated, because they need to be able to controll their own money without their greedy baby-boomer parents spending it all on their divorce attorneys. We need to get some serious reform of these laws, teenagers are being shafted in so many ways these days, it seems that they are adults when convenient for adults (criminal justice) and children when convenient for adults (drinking, smoking, driving, voting, and financial control)
Um, you seem to have compiled without enabling a sense of humour. Try switching on CONFIG_HUMOR_RECOGNITION and try again.
Incidentally, the business about contractual obligation is a complete red herring. Think about it - if you can't sue for breach of contract, how do you plan to sue for breaking the terms of the download by being under 18?
And insulting people you're trying to persuade of things is rarely effective and doesn't make Slashdot a fun place to be. Please don't.
--
Xenu loves you!
...when was the last time you had to be 18 to download a piece of software? An -operating system-, no less?
:-) But I guess the language in the MFC source is 'more appropriate' than the Linux kernel source. (But what does MFC really mean? Mo Fo Coderz? ;-)
Well, downloading or buying. Has anybody actually read the MS EULA's? I bet they do the same, but nobody gives a shit. Heck, I bought VC++ 1.5 when I was 15.
-
__
Comment submitted. There will be a delay before you understand what you posted.
From section 15 of our charter of rights and freedoms: 1.Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. Doesn't that strike you interesting that people under 18 can't vote, as the government doesn't want discrimination based on age? So governments already don't follow their own laws, so I wouldn't expect them to be sympathetic in this case. a.c. # 002534
Okay, so... what you just said basically amounts to "yeah, "minors" can't use Corel Linux 'cuz they can't enter into legally binding agreements... and so they have "no right" to use Corel Linux." How does stating the ugly facts make them somehow okay?
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
> Typical 16-year old kid downloads gcc from
> prep.ai.mit.edu (oops, I mean ftp.gnu.org). Kid
> reads license, then realizes that he's not bound
> by it, since he's not of age. FSF didn't bother
> to check if he was allowed to get the software,
> so BANG! the license is void, and the 16 year
> old can do WHATEVER HE WANTS with the code.
Wrong. CONTRACTS are not binding on minors.
COPYRIGHT LICENSES *are*. Otherwise I could get my
sister to pirate MS Office for me.
- Adam Megacz, AC by laziness
Well, there's a first time for everything....
.....they're shooting themselves in the foot, because the kids forced to use Windoze will use twice as many expletives when their system goes awry......
- "How do we do it? Volume!" - The Bursar of Unseen University.
I too am underage, and am rather offended by this license, seeing as how I am a linux user, posting this message from Netscape under linux. However, the horrid spelling in your post does not strengthen your position any.
Immediatly casting of all people under 18 as idiots who can't understand the GPL
They may be doing so, but you're not exactly helping to oppose the opinion of minors being idiots when the sentence stating so has 2 misspelled words. That is also a common occurrance throughout your post, along with an apparent lack of basic sentence structure for half of the sentences that you have written...
could be unenforceable is an issue? That it is reasonable for any 16
year old can download it, and then sell their modifications to a
commercial company who release it under a proprietary license.
This is potentially a substantial problem in GPL, and we should
be getting the legal opinions out in the public for discussion, not
launching the machinery of a lawsuit.
Ack! Makes my teeth hurt just thinking about it.
======
"Rex unto my cleeb, and thou shalt have everlasting blort." - Zorp 3:16
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
Hah, like most, since your older by a few years, think that all ''kids'' are morons. Wake up man, talk to a smart 16yr old that runs linux. I bet he could tell you more of c than anything else. Just dont label people based upon age, thats all. -Nestea
For the people saying that this it to prevent a breach of a contractual obligation, that is BS.
It would be the first operating system I've ever bought with that clause.
Is it only me or is anyone else disturbed that Corel has a more strict licensce than most _closed source_ software. It is probably a mistake, but I would still rather give my money to a company that doesn't choose to Insult me (I'm 16) even if it's unintentional. Corel has made too many brain dead mistakes to get my business, and I didn't want their crappy file manager anyway.
'Scuse me, sonny. Just because you're over eightteen and I'm over eightteen doesn't mean that everyone is over eightteen. Whatever happened to consideration for those who society overlooks? I was a "minor" when I first used Linux, a "minor" when I first installed Linux on my own machines, and I have helped many "minors" install Linux. Why should Corel Linux be the "adults-only" OS? Try being a little more sensitive to others' needs here-- some kids might actually WANT this stuff!
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
Not invalid: voidable. Ie. minors *can* choose to be bound by the
agreement in order to enforce the contract against others, but may at
any time void the contract to avoid having the terms enforced against
themselves.
I realize this is slightly off-subject, but this is something I (and probably other) minors probably need to know. Just today, I copylefted some source files by slapping on a "Copyright (C) 199 Neil Halelamien". Assuming minors can copyright, are there any legal issues we should be aware of? I'd in the past assumed that minors were able to, but the issues brought up in this discussion made me begin to wonder.
...I think I understand what you're going through. I've spent a twenty years in the programming-publishing side of computers, and I've seen how creative visions can get "mixed" when dealing with big companies.
Corel is a BIG COMPANY, and they have lots of lawyers, managers, and assorted anal-retentive busibots who haven't a clue as to what "Open Source" or "Linux" mean. What they see is a buzzword that they can *use* to differentiate themselves from the hated Microsoft. Corel is using Linux for its own purposes; they have no stake in what we believe is a moral quest to open information.
If anything will kill the web, it will be big companies turning it into another faceless, mass-market commodity.
Hang in there...
Its probably just a formula that they use in all of their EULAs that has been passed from product to product forever, like a Christmas fruitcake. Besides, I don't think that minors can enter into a legal contract on their own anyhow, so it wouldn't really matter anyway. Of course, i am probably wrong, as is nearly everyone who tries to understand our legal system. :)
Deosyne
Well, duh. =P Corel is a corporation. They pay their employees. To pay their employees, they require income. Lots of it. Corel is doing what I call "CYA-ing" or covering their asses. =) It happens. Deal with it.
- Christopher McCoy / cymoril@spam.unbeliever.net - I dislike spam, remove it from my email address
Since anyone under the age of 18 cannot be bound by a contract, they're just asking that a guardian take responsibility for the act of *downloading* the software from *their* sites. It doesn't say anything about using using the software.
:-))
Otherwise corel could be in court for distributing the words "fuck me gently with a chainsaw" to children on a mass scale. Presumably, once you have downloaded the software yourself, YOU can redistribute it to whoever you like (but now YOU are responsible for who gets it!).
Whether this is violation of the GPL or not I don't know, but does anybody have a better suggestion? (apart from "stop being so anal, cos it'll never go to court anyway"
The cause the Corel Linux is only for minors is a payoff from Microsoft. There next move will be to payoff all distributions forcing minors to buy windows. This will inturn force them to learn windows as their main os so they can take over the world.
Just wanted to be crazy for a minute. So, what other stupid things can Corel do next. "As the phophecy has fortold."
I'm already pretty sick of Corel's apparent ignorance concerning licenses. This is the third time they "goof" in the most essential area to both Debian and Linux. Their problem understanding the nature of "open" within the community is too great for it to be overlooked. If they cannot understand linux's reason for being, they should not continue in the community. The issue is even more serious when it affects the only distribution developed entirely by volunteers, many of who are under 18. The restriction, of course, is ridiculous and impossible to enforce. Will they card people who by the distro in a store? Will they require parental approval if ordering it over the phone?
If corel wants to use it's own restrictive license, then they should actually do some work and make their own distribution (and their own kernel while they're at it) or use a more fitting distro. Their choice to use deb obviously was not followed by any research on the distro's philosophy. Corel is an insult to the whole linux effort - please leave.
Surely this just doesn't make sense?
1. Minors can't be bound by contracts
2. Minors therefore can't be bound by the Corel license
3. They can, therefore, download it without being in breach of the Corel license.
This seems to me to be completely insane.
Unfortulately, there's one problem with your plan.
Criminal laws also apply to minors. Minors aren't legally allowed to export strong crypto any more than they're allowed to export guns, sell dope, buy porno, shoplift, or commit murder. Whether or not it's right (hint: it's not right), if a minor exported strong crypto the best he or she could hope for was a lighter criminal penalty than an adult would get.
This is not my opinion. I do not agree with it. It's just the law. (IANAL)
-- Rene
The Corel distribution is for those people who hate to be told how to do things by their kids. You know, the kinda people who have trouble setting their video recorder. At least now they can tell their kids they're not allowed to use it.. ;)
It's just that when I see the horrible gramm a r in your post, I can't see how anybody can take the good point you are trying to make seriously. Did you ever think about that? No, you probably didn't...
Hey 15 year old, how are you going to "play" with the source and you can't even spell right. Maybe you will "judt devlop there" code? FYI, no one under 18 has made any incremental moves in the Open Source movement.
Corel provides equal access to the source code regardless of race, age, gender, etc. Check the site again for accessing the source code. The EULA only applies to access to the ISO.
Please keep in mind that its not their first mistake in licensing. Yes, we should be polite, but if Corel carries on this way, we should consider a change of our opinion. Have an eye on it.
Well, no shit! "What bedtime story would you like today, little Amy? Another chapter of The Phantom Tollbooth, or net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c?"
...
"So the packet went back to the firewall, knocked on the door, and said 'Mr. firewall, I have a SYN bit now, may I come in?'
'What port do you want?' said the firewall.
'Port 23' said the packet.
'Get lost!' said the firewall again, and once again booted him all the way back to the source host with an ICMP reject in his ear.
Well! The poor little packet was very upset...
--
Xenu loves you!
This is sort of a mute point anyway. Since in order for something to be a binding legal document in the United States the signees must be aged over 18.
Ok, how's that for stupid.
Last I checked, in the USA, you have to be 18 to enter a legally binding agreement. You agree to follow those rules. However if you're under 18 you cannot be legally forced to follow those rules because you are still a minor and cannot enter a legally binding agreement. That means that if you're under 18, get it anyways, and hope they don't come after your parents *evil grin*
With the trouble they've had with this silly licence agreement, and the earlier problems they had with their beta release, Corel would do well to sack some of their over-zealous lawyers.
They could use the money they've saved to hire some free software developers.
I couldn't find mention of this in any other comment, but.... UserFriendly has responded in a kinda funny manner:
http://www.userfr iendly.org/cartoons/archives/99nov/19991128.html
Two days ago, when they got /dotted I sent a mail, asking them what this work 'MINOR' means. My wordbook did not explain it to me in a nice way and babelfish translated it bad too (MINOR = Untersetzer, translated back to english this means coaster).
The answer I got was only a list of some of their employees. Well, nice answer, but I did not ask for that!
This is my mail:
-------------------
Sender: wolfi@neuss.netsurf.de
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 20:38:10 +0100
From: Wolfgang Formann
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.8 i586)
X-Accept-Language: German, de, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: linux-feedback@corel.com
Subject: Could you please explain this to me
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> YOU CERTIFY THAT YOU ARE NOT A MINOR AND THAT YOU AGREE TO BE
> BOUND BY ALL OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET OUT IN THE LICENSE
> BELOW. DOWNLOADING AND/OR USING THE PRODUCT WILL BE AN
> IRREVOCABLE ACCEPTANCE OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE LICENSE.
Sorry, but the language of my parents is german. What do you mean
with the word 'MINOR'?
Am I large enough with 1m76cm?
Am I a member of some minority, as beeing from Austria?
If not, what is it good for to be not a 'MINOR'?
Thank you for the explanation.
Wolfgang Formann
-------------------
And this was their automatically response:
-------------------
To: w.formann@neuss.netsurf.de
From: Mail Administrator
Reply-To: Mail Administrator
Subject: Mail System Error - Returned Mail
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 15:05:38 -0500
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status;
Boundary="===========================_ _= 9394226(6984)"
X-Mozilla-Status: 8001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 'Lo!!d>5e9"Rod9Ji:!!
--===========================_ _= 9394226(6984)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
This Message was undeliverable due to the following reason:
Your message was not delivered because the destination computer was
not reachable within the allowed queue period. The amount of time
a message is queued before it is returned depends on local configura-
tion parameters.
Most likely there is a network problem that prevented delivery, but
it is also possible that the computer is turned off, or does not
have a mail system running right now.
Your message was not delivered within 2 days.
Host corel.com is not responding.
The following recipients did not receive your message:
The following recipients did not receive your message:
The following recipients did not receive your message:
The following recipients did not receive your message:
The following recipients did not receive your message:
The following recipients did not receive your message:
The following recipients did not receive your message:
The following recipients did not receive your message:
The following recipients did not receive your message:
The following recipients did not receive your message:
The following recipients did not receive your message:
The following recipients did not receive your message:
The following recipients did not receive your message:
The following recipients did not receive your message:
The following recipients did not receive your message:
The following recipients did not receive your message:
The following recipients did not receive your message:
The following recipients did not receive your message:
The following recipients did not receive your message:
The following recipients did not receive your message:
The following recipients did not receive your message:
The following recipients did not receive your message:
The following recipients did not receive your message:
The following recipients did not receive your message:
The following recipients did not receive your message:
The following recipients did not receive your message:
Please reply to Postmaster@nsmail.corel.com
if you feel this message to be in error.
-------------------
A End Users Licensing Agreement is a contract and therefore requires someone who is of legal age. You can not enter any legal contract until you are of legal age in your respective country. It cant be done. You simply are not legally responsible for what you are doing.
This is such an ignorant rant, perfectly illustrating the narrow minded tunnel vision some of the linux "community" seem to have. Corel need to walk the tightrope between their commercial interests (which they understand perfectly) and other peoples non-commercial interests (which they are just learning). These things take time. Contrary to popular opinion, the world does *not* revolve around Open SOurce, the GPL and Free Software. Rather than saying Corel are insulting Linux - I'd say they're performing a great service to Linux - they're attempting to do what you die hard propeller heads refuse to do - bring a great operating system to the people who you despise - the ordinary user.And in the course of doing that, they're finding issues which they need to resolve. Poeple like you, who throw stones, are no help whatsoever.
Does this mean that if a kid buys MS Windows, or any other proprietary program, he/she is not bound by it's EULA?
That would seem strange...
Gee, too bad I can't run Corel. As CowboyNeal said on Geeks in Space I didn't really have to stay up late at night to figure out that I wouldn't if I could anyways. Is there a reason for why they put this here, something else in the contract to say why, or did they just gather around a table and say "gee, kids are too stupid to handle this, let's not even let them try." I don't know what Corel is thinking but the stuff they've done so far (this, the GPL but not really thing for the demo, etc...) really isn't getting them any popularity....
Knowing my luck CEO of Corel has moderator points today.
If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit.
If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit.
jdube is who I am
Was the Dean's actions ever challenged on legal grounds? I'd be surprised if the Dean's actions as described were not illegal.
the dean has some criminal charges up against her, i'm not sure what the latest scoop is, but i can find out if you want to know. it is illegal because she went into it with false intent(i think that's the law she broke). She knew the contract would just be an admission of guilt, and the bargin would not have to be held up.
Check this out!
/* XXX Fucking Cypress... */ /* Fuck me plenty... */ /* Fucking losing PROM has more mappings in the TLB, but /* Fuck me plenty... */ :-) */
[avalon]:/usr/src/linux# grep "Fuck" * -r
arch/sparc/kernel/head.S:
arch/sparc/kernel/ptrace.c:/* Fuck me gently with a chainsaw... */
arch/sparc64/kernel/ptrace.c:/* Fuck me gently with a chainsaw... */
arch/sparc64/kernel/binfmt_aout32.c:
arch/sparc64/mm/init.c:
fs/binfmt_aout.c:
include/asm-mips/mmu_context.h:/* Fuck. The f-word is here so you can grep for it
[avalon]:/usr/src/linux#
I LOVED the last result! You just gotta love those kernel hackers!
All browsers' default homepage should read: Don't Panic...
You don't understand, the Debian project has put great effort into preparing Debian GNU/Linux and Corel agreed to allow the distribution of the DSFG software in thier dist according to those guidelines. Non-discrimination is part of the DSFG. the >18 clause in thier liscence violates the DSFG. This is the entirety of Debian's (and Bruce's) complaint. Debian is happy with the work that Corel is doing towards creating a wider acceptance of Linux and Free Software. But the addional restrictions in thier liscence threaten the validity of the GPL.
FIRST POST WHILE MASTURBATING AND STROKING MY THICK COCK!!!
I'm sure this is going to be one of the many post that say the say thing. However maybe by reading these all some one from Corel will get the point. I started using dos when I was 9. I pretty much had it masterd at the age of 12. I started with debian Linux my freshman year in high school at the age of 14. I'm now using Slackware and I'm 17.
I can't beleive that a company would do somthing like this, I would think that they would have taken into account what a precentage of their market is under 18.
Open Source Software -is- capatalistic, or at least Free Market. In a Free Market system, goods and services are exchanged for something of value (typically other goods and services).
Simply put, no exchange of goods or services will occure unless both parties benefit. In OSS, the services (writing code) is exchanged for what benefit (Hint: Cath. & Baz.). It is exchanged for either that happy-fuzzy feeling of helping someone else, or for status among the comunity. And status is -very- important. I know an exectutive who makes almost $150,000 yearly on -just- his salary who got pissed off and threw a hissy over a $500 car allowance. Why? Status. Heck, that's the only reason I have biz. cards at work, 'cause it's a status symbol. Corner office anyone?
Here's some suggested reading for all of those people who think that OSS is "comunistic": The Cathedral The Bazzar (duh!), Free To Choose (by Economist & Nobel Laureate, Milton Friedman, ISBN: 0-15-633460-7)
OK, remember that using software is NOT the same as buying other forms of intellectual property (such as a book). This is stupid, but it's currently the way things work.
When I get a piece of software, I enter into a contract (the terms of which are in the License) between the entity distributing the software and myself. The contract specifies what I can and cannot do with the software I receive.
Unfortunately, in this country, minors are screwed, as they are unable to enter into legally binding contracts (enless you are an emancipated minor, which means you're effectively an adult).
When Corel restricts their downloads to adults, that's actually GOOD. It means that the adult downloading the software is legally responsible for seeing that the contract (eg License) is followed. The adult is of course allowed to share the software with minors, but it is the ADULT that is responsible for making sure the License is upheld.
This is something the Free Software may have overlooked. Think about this scenario:
Typical 16-year old kid downloads gcc from prep.ai.mit.edu (oops, I mean ftp.gnu.org). Kid reads license, then realizes that he's not bound by it, since he's not of age. FSF didn't bother to check if he was allowed to get the software, so BANG! the license is void, and the 16 year old can do WHATEVER HE WANTS with the code. That includes making it into a proprietary product, or selling it to a company that then incorporates it into their company. And that's all legal, because the distributor (FSF) didn't bother to check to see if the receiver was allowed to enter into a contract.
You don't see this problem in ordinary stuff, because when I buy virtually anything BUT software, I'm actually buying the item, and not entering into some weird use-contract. The laws are completely different for actual transfer of ownership.
Unfortunately, but it may actually be the BEST thing that comes from Corel Linux is that they're being really paranoid about covering all their bases (well, actually, just covering their ass) with this thing.
I'm sorry the world has to be like this, but if we want to play in the big leagues, well, we have to live by all the rules.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
If you are under 18, ignore the clause, if you are over 18 then you are fine. EULA's are very touchy legally anyway and they're not going to come around with a team of lawyers to make sure a 15 year old doesn't download their Linux distribution. If you feel that scared about it, just get Debian. I haven't even been able to get past the pre-package selection phases of Corel Linux before it locks up or refuses to proceed further so I don't see it as a big loss. Just go back to Debian or Redhat which works FINE.
Every good damn time we get a new VCR guess
who gets to program it. Me the 17 year old son.
Of course I have been doing it since I was like 12. It was a hell of alot harder back then.
But minors don't need parental permission (legally speaking) to read a book that is covered by copyright. Merely reading the book doesn't mean that the reader enters a contractual relationship with the author or the publisher. The reader, whether a minor or an adult, is still subject to the copyright laws, which are unilateral (i.e. you don't get to argue the terms of the law with the lawmaker each time it applies to you). There is no need to bring in contractual law and discuss whether the minor has obtained a valid license to read the published book. Why should published source code be any different?
The whole idea of the need for end-user software licenses seems to be based on the notion that the software isn't published, but rather developed for a very limited number of users, as was common practice in the early days of commercial software development. But when you ship millions of copies of the same computer program to be sold over the counter, can you still claim that those binary files aren't in fact published (i.e. made available to the general public), and that anyone buying a copy thus has to enter a contractual relationship not only with the supplier by paying for the copy, but also with the publisher over access to the information stored on it? If so, why doesn't every printed book or aired broadcast come with an end-user license agreement?
In order for kids to be able to live in the society of the future, will they have to obtain blanket permissions en masse from their parents, so that they can enter those 500+ license agreements per day required to surf the Web, play computer games, or watch television? When "license agreements" become as omnipresent as air, will we still respect the legal ramifications of violating one or two of them?
The GPL maintainers could begin making things a little more sensible by not requiring end-users to enter a license agreement merely to download and run published software. The "licensing" verbiage should be limited to those wishing to distribute the code or modifications of it to others. This would still require under-age hackers to obtain parental permission in order to take part in software development or distribution, but this is the case for pretty much any media work that kids get involved in today.
IS IT JUST ME OR JUST COREL HAVE A TO BIG OF A LEGAL DEPARTMENT! PLEASE O PLEASE I WISH COREL WOULD GET IN A NASTY LAWSUIT BATTLE WITH MICROSOFT SO THAT COREL'S LEGAL TEAM WOULD HAVE SOMETHING TO DO
Oh yea and the hard core porn on the new Corel Linux distro is great, did you see the one with 16 girls, 3 guys
Considering that the privacy dep. is in Ottawa, and so are most of their work force (AFAIK) It could be a clause forced by the Canadian Gov.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I guess Corel wants to distribute its Linux version outside of the US as well. If so, what is a minor, what an adult? Do you have to be 16, 18, 21? There is no international definition... Besides, there are different stages of becoming an adult, the point when you may drive a car, when you can choose your religion, when you can vote, when you are fully responsible for your wrong-doings. I guess the stages differ as well among countries. Where's the point in life when your mature enough to get your copy of Corel Linux? ;-)
I understand that different countries have diverse opinions on nudity, violence etc., so there probably won't ever be a global agreement, but where is the point in restricting the download of a Linux distribution?! The comments couldn't really come up with an explanation so far...
He can't legally sell 'gcc' to a company as he doesn't own it. If he did and the company would STILL be violating the owners copyright
You can't just pass a work through an intermediary and remove all their rights.
Also the minor legally can not use or sell the product without the license in which case they are NOT legally entitled to use it
sucks to be a minor, age discrimination is a bitch
Ya know, I been readin an hearin bout linix and this distro from coral for a long time now and have been lookin forward to downloadin and installin it. Sounds just like the kinda thing I been waitn for. I shovel about 20-25 tons a coal a day an when I get home, I just dont have time to learn how to install any of them other distros. So, when I hear the announcement bout this distro, I go to the download site and whats the first thing I find out? I AINT ALLOWED TO DOWNLOAD IT! Well, that just sucks! I aint gonna quit my j...huh....
Oh...nevermind
Criminalize spam and telemarketing!
nm
As has been pointed out, the GPL is a license, and
as a minor you can't agree to a license because that's entering into a contract. Minors can't do that in most countries. Corel isn't saying minors can't use Linux, they're saying they can't download it. If you invalidate this, you invalidate the GPL as a contract. Either the law needs to change on contracts, EULA's need to be struck down as invalid (whoops, there goes the GPL!), or you need to have mommy or daddy download the software for you.
As has also been pointed out, you can just go ahead and download the software yourself if you're a minor. You'll have an "illegal" copy and the GPL will still be enforcable and apply to your copy. Seems to me that this is the best solution given the current set of laws.
Corel and their legal department aren't at fault here. Instead of a sensationalist post about Corel, this should really have been about the state of the judiciary. Corel's lawyers have done the best they could given the parameters they have to operate in.
A more troubling question is if the minors who've contributed code can even license it at all without their parent's consent.
Paul
http://www.pauldrobertson.com
the reason they are doing this is because minors are legaly incompitant. that is why they can't sign a contract. minors aren't affected by EULA's, because any contract that they agree to without their parent's consent(and that is a difficult thing for anyone to prove that they have), is invaild.
oh, yea, IANAL.
Let's skip the sensationalism and figure out why they included this clause. As the law stands in Canada (and most other Common law countries), a minor *CAN* enter into a contract but is not bound by the terms in the contract. The other party in the contract, however, must fulfill the terms. Ouch. I could go and give you the name of the court case that decided this, but I left my law book at home.
So, Corel probably put this "over 18" clause in to scare away any minors that might be able to take advantage of the EULA. Of course, any minors out there could download the software and not be bound to the EULA since they are not bound to the terms in a contract. Ooooo a paradox! A minor can break the EULA, but to get the software they must be 18, but they can break the EULA, but... yadda yadda.
I don't think the lawyers were being "over-zealous", they were just trying to find a way to prevent a mishap by blowing smoke.
"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)
You pay only US$4.95 for Corel® LINUX® OS on two CDs:
Open Circulation CD which carries the same files as the download version
Source Code CD which carries the source code on CD or not
Now I would definitely THINK that both of those CDs are under the same license...
And I didn't find any information on wether it's possible to get only the source CD.
Ner lbh sebz gur HFN? Gura lbh'ir whfg ivbyngrq gur QZPN!
It's official! (BTW, I thought Corel was Canadian, why all these refs to US law?)
Think about it, worst come to worst kids come can get an install CD from someone else.
I mean kids can learn how to make explosive and get all the porn his (or hers) heart deasires. To you really think something like an age limits gonna keep them from getting linux?
One question that poped in to mind just now. Do the mirior sites have to have the same disclaimer as well? Being that its open source, Corel and only have so much power here.
Am I right?
Do not wright in this space.
Indeed, you do have a point that I forgot: the copyright on the code remainds, so a minor who gets the code from the FSF can't sell it to someone else for inclusion in their code.
However, provisions in the License are still invalid, since the "sale" was directly to a minor.
You are correct that passing something through a intermediary cannot remove rights such as copyright. However, contract law is NOT copyright, and CAN be removed by selling/transferring the product to a party unable to agree to the contract.
Actually, I just thought of something that is interesting: look at the "Not for public performance" and "Not for rental" agreements on most Video/DVD/audio products. Now, normally, if I buy a DVD, I'm licensed to only use the product in my home. However, if the store sells it to my 13-year-old, legally, the kid should be able to set up a movie theater, and charge admission. He's not violating the copyright of the DVD, he's just not bound to the License restriction. And if he sells the DVD to an adult, well, the adult hasn't agreed to any contract, either, so...
I'd be interested to hear from an IP lawyer about this. Unforatunely (or fortunately), IANAL.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
I think Corel is just trying to protect their ass.
Think about it, when you where 13 and got a fresh copy of Debain 1.3 or older slackware, you where excited right? Then what happened? Yes I did the same thing as many of you, I was so excited I installed it with out reading the instructions and hosed the other OS on the computer I was installing it on.
What if that other OS was your parents workstation and had years of xyz data that they used for work? It would be gone, but you know what, Corel would be able to say, "Hey it illegal downloaded that software from our ftp site, it is not all fault he hosed the install, it is his"
I know alot of people, including my self, that at a young age tried to quickly install Linux on there parents computers without taking the time to read all the instructions (and warning messages) on fips and fdisk.
Corel is a company in the Business world and they don't want to be held responsiable for there product, like so many other companies
We need to hear from Corel, to get their side of the story. We have to at least get a statement, to get Corel's voice in /WHY/ they put this into their EULA, before we burn them at the stake. Then if it is for a stupid reason, or they don't have a reason, we can ask them to take it out. If they don't we burn them at the stake then, till then we just post on slashdot like mindless drones for hours.
I know an exectutive who makes almost $150,000 yearly on -just- his salary who got pissed off and threw a hissy over a $500 car allowance. Why? Status. :)
Well, in my experience, the people with "status" or "money" are most often the cheapest bunch of bastards you're ever gonna meet.
I used to make slightly over minimum wage working at a parking garage to help pay for rent/cd's during University. The worst offenders were well-dressed macho jerks in BMWs out on dates trying to impress their friends/ladies. They would argue over a $3.00 (flat-rate) charge for parking. It was probably the least expensive part of the whole evening, and they would give me a hard time trying to get away for free.
Being a total hard-ass, I would ignore them, and not let them out til they paid the damn fee that every other person was paying.
The best part was when their dates got all embarrassed and tried to pay for them. Oooh, what a way to upset an insecure man!
For more of my life stories, go listen to "Pumpin' 4 The Man" by Ween
Pope
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
You suppose wrong.
Considering that an install of Corel Linux
is very likely to blow your partition table
unless you have nothing else on the drive,
this could protect the kid's safety.
How do you think a pissed off father will react
after the kid destroys all his data and has no
idea how to recover those data?
Actually they should restrict the download to
people who use winblows only.
I installed Corel Linux on a 14G hard disk. It
refused to install on a freshly formated partition
and I, in a stupid move let it remove that
partition and recreate it. It messed up by a few
cylinders and ended up making my hard disk
impossible to be seen by Partition magic or fdisk
from winblows. OS/2 could see the other partition
but couldn't do anything with the hard disk
because the partition had been blown. If I had
installed on a logical partition it is very likely
that I would have had to reinstall SuSE without
the benefit of saving my data first.
I ended having to reinstall everything. Luckily
I was still able to boot SuSE with a diskette
and could see all the data from there. SuSE
fdisk would tell me that someone messed the
partition table and was unable to do much with
it. I backed up everything and recreated a clean
partition table. A complete repartitioning and
reinstall was done on the 14G hard disk.
This just proves that Windows is a kid's toy, doesn't it?
I'm going to get moderated all to hell for this but people, give it a rest. Not every action by every corporation is an afront on your freedom. Once in awhile, legal people have to do legal stuff. Businesses' (i.e. the people who make money) have to protect themselves from the leecherous lawsuit-happy people who make up the United States. No one is trying to prevent you from doing anything. So grow up. And relax a little.
Once in awhile, a company has to safeguard it's own ass.
----------------- "I have a bone to pick, and a few to break." - Refused -------------------
In the UK, and most other countries, minors can enter into contracts for necessary items. This has to be the law, since otherwise a minor could not even buy a packet of sweets. Purchase is essentially a contract.
:-). A contract to buy/use software would probably stand up in court as computing is either a hobby or educational in some way.
However the term "necessary items" is very vague and is often decided on a case by case basis in the UK. i.e. a kid can legitimately enter into a contract to buy a Ferrari providing he/she can show it's "necessary"
P.S. IANAL
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
This isn't exactly true if I remember my high school law right. A minor can enter into a contract, but is not bound to it. Thus if a minor enters into a contract, then doesn't fulfill his part of the contract, he can't be held responsible for anything. However, the other party in the contract does have to hold up their part of the contract. :)
Basically what Corel is doing is this: if a minor were to lie about his age and accept the licence, Corel would have no legal obligation to fulfill that licence because the licence would be void. If they didn't have that clause, and a minor were to accept the licence, Corel would be obligated to fulfill their part of the licence, but the licencee (the minor) would not.
I'm not exactly sure what the distinction is...I mean it's not like Corel is paying the guy. An unfortunate consequence of this is that I think it does indeed prohibit minors from using the software; if they were to accept the licence, the licence would immediately become void (because they violated it), yet it's illegal AFAIK to use copyrighted software without a valid licence. I would say just eliminate the licence altogether; I don't think Corel would lose anything, since they're not in a position to be "held responsible for what the kid does" or anything like that.
NB: IANAL, and please excuse my gender-generic use of "he"
I think it pretty much boils down to the paranoia of Corel in the fact that if a 14 year old kid who wants to try Linux for the first time decides to delete the Windows 98 FAT32 partition to install Linux (woohoo), mom and dad would have a FIT because they get on Juno or AOL anymore (evil grin).
When they go to their son or daughter and say "you're grounded for all eternity" the kid says in response "I had NO idea it would do that! it's not my fault!" The parents in response think "hey - corel's product just screwed my computer over. let's call our lawyer - we need a new computer anyway".
That pretty much sums up what I think Corel is thinking. Just as others pointed out - Ignore the minor agreement.
- Detritus
In the US, one must be 18 years old or over to enter a binding agreement. But, i think it has been said some where, sorry i dont have a link, that license agreements are not binding. They might just want to make sure that people will follow the license. Or they might just have a lot of of porn in the distrobution =). Im 16, but this would not stop me from getting the distrobution and using it, and I think that alot of other people would agree with me.
Correct. It is Canadian contract law. The licence would be illegal without it.
MOD! Master Of Dos! :)
Eloquently put, now where are my moderator points?
--
Donate food with your index finger!
ZZ
I am sure this is because of xdoom that comes in some of the 'games' packages...
If you had seen the number of people who end in a hospital with eye injuries because of corks every christmas you would really really want them not to sue you.
You must agree to both Corel's EULA and the GPL to download this. Since kids can't agree to contract ( or to having sex ) the Corel legal team is simply speling out that which is obvius to layers. IANAL but at leat I gused this much. What dose a real lawyer say ?
Disclaimer: IANAL so I could be wrong about anything I say here.
First, I'll be redundant and point out that Corel is a Canadian company and is therefore bound by Canadian laws. Being Canadian myself, I am well aware how anal some laws in Canada are. In fact, in Canada a minor cannot enter into ANY contract (with a small number of exceptions which do not apply here). It is not a stretch for Canadian courts to decide that an EULA is a contract. I suspect that Corel's legal department is trying to guard against possible legal repercussions that might prevent them from distributing Corel Linux at all. (Note that the age of majority in Canada is defined by the individual provinces.) This doesn't take into account possible repercussions of distribution in international markets (including the US).
It is my understanding also that an EULA cannot override any laws in the jurisdiction of the user. Therefore if any clause in the EULA is illegal, depending on the license or local laws the rest may or may not be binding. This same caveat applies to the GPL.
As I understand it, if a country has a law that forbids restrictions on software distribution or use and requires everything to be public domain if source code is release (hypothetical; I'm not aware of any such country), then the GPL could not be applied, but neither could the software be denied to that country once it was present in that country. Again, IANAL so this could be completely wrong.
I will close with a note that, in Canada at least, there is no law that I am aware of that prevents a minor from using software that was legally obtained by the parent unless said software violates some specific law.
Again, IANAL (in case you didn't notice before).
If it works in theory, try something else in practice.
wow! someone actually gets it. In this case the clause is from Candian contract law. You can't enter into any form of a contract with minors. The EULA would probably be illegal without it.
This *SHOULD* affect GPL.
Just think. A minor
1) downloads any GPL code.
2) Is not bound to be held by the terms
3) What upholds the GPL in court?