The Zen Koan of T&C's.
Last updated: never
No further pages. No hidden clauses.
> 8. You are responsible for what you do, what you build, and what follows from either.
Or is this somehow meant to mean something else but worded so badly it can't be understood.
I've heard of large organizations reaching out to places who use amateur T&Cs and licenses, saying "if we give you $X, can you dual license this as MIT, Apache, BSD, or hell anything standard?".
> Access is not conditioned on approval
Is this obvious enough legalese to not waste tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees if you get sued?
Note before you reply: I will not argue with you about how obvious it is. If you are actually a lawyer then it'd be interesting to hear your guidance, which I very much understand is not legal advice. If you're not a lawyer then I'm not.
Of course even better is to simply have no explicit license, especially for something like code. Normal people can assume they can do whatever they'd like (basically, public domain). Lawyers will assume they cannot. The only thing stopping someone is their own belief in their self restrictions. i.e. you can use the thing if and only if you don't believe in my authority on the matter.
I practice law in California. I've written terms of service that many, many people here on HN will have agreed to. I read this line and didn't know what it meant, or what it intended to mean.
That said:
> If you are actually a lawyer then it'd be interesting to hear your guidance, which I very much understand is not legal advice. If you're not a lawyer then I'm not.
There's no good way to validate lawyerdom on public social media like HN. And while the average lawyer probably remembers enough from law school or bar exams to know slightly more about Web terms of service and legal drafting than the average person, there's nothing to stop non-lawyers from reading up and learning. Eric Goldman's Technology & Marketing Law Blog is a great, public source covering cases on ToS and other issues, for example.
The Bar monopolizes representation within legal institutions. Don't cede the law itself to lawyers.
"Often one generation values things much more than others. Boomers and their wristwatches. One generation is like 'only from my cold dead hands,' the others 'what would I even need this for?!' What are examples of things the youngest generation did away with?"
If OP were a checklist, the answer would have checked every point.
Those are still terms and conditions!
It unintentionally demonstrates the limits of individual agency to avoid legal embroilments
That is to say: it doesn’t really matter what this person puts on their website because there is a judge and a sheriff somewhere that can force you to do something that would violate the things you wrote down because the things you wrote are subordinate to jurisdictional law (which is invoked as you point out)
It’s actually pretty poetic when you think about it because the page effectively says nothing because it doesn’t have content that the license applies to
If it’s a art piece intended to show something about licensure all it does is demonstrate the degree to which licensure is predicated on jurisdiction
Had it simply read "You may use this site for any purpose." or "You may use this site." or "You may use this" or "This can be used." it would have the same level actual restriciton in that you obviously aren't allowed to use it to break the law regardless of what it actually says.
And, having typed all that, I realize that there is another restriction in that it presumes that there is a 'you' using it. Things that are not 'you' cannot use it given that it specifically lists 'you' in the referenced parties. "This can be used" would be more permissive.
If I (Canadian) am providing a service to you (American) and I know you're using it to, say, spread hate speech I'm violating a law I can be prosecuted for (hate speech isn't considered to be covered by free speech here) and you aren't (hate speech considered free speech in the US, so you can't even be extradited for it. Of course if you voluntarily visit Canada, or most of the rest of the world, you could theoretically be prosecuted. But you might just never do that).
Having a rule against it in my TOS both provides me with some degree of legal cover (I wasn't conspiring, someone just misused my product) and provides a legal avenue to go after you should your actions be harmful enough to justify lawyers (in the US protected speech does not justify breaking private contracts).
Of course... this works a lot better if there's a choice of venue clause in the contract which makes it clear what laws we are referring to when we say lawful.
PS. Our hate speech laws may include jurisdictional limits that mean you aren't violating hate speech laws by using a Canadian website from abroad to spread hate speech, or they might not. It's honestly not something I've worried about. Assume for the sake of argument they apply since there certainly are laws which would under these circumstances.
Perhaps not. The law, as automatically applied, often include implied warranties.
that this site definitely
does not, legally
I’m pretty sure this is already questionable in the EU.
johnplatte•1h ago
stavros•1h ago
bayneri•1h ago
p.s. quick fix is "stop being lazy and move the single html off cloudflare"
replooda•1h ago
There you go.