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.
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)
maybe they did it because of all the F-words In the keRnel Source, or whaT do you think ? ;-)
Say no to software patents.
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.
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!
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
I've helped them out a few times, but they fail to learn anything. I can't help them any longer.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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=-
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.
That's right. Many countries have laws stating that minors cannot be bound by a contract. So a minor is not supposed to agree on the EULA - that's something that her parents should do.
I see no malice there - Corel is simply trying to be as careful as possible (too much, maybe?). They are not trying to prevent people from using Linux. I'm sure that some people at Corel do know that parts of the code on their CD has been written by minors.
-Raphaël
- 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.
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
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.
If the contract is not binding... then the 18, years clause would not be binding either. So what's the point?
As far as I can tell, there isn't one - but from a practical standpoint, there is a lot of difference between agreeing to a contract that is non-enforcable, and making a false declaration of age to obtain goods or services.
--
-=DaveHowe=-
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!
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.
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.
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
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.