<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
TL;DR: I agree that a service provider might cut off a FreedomBox
user, claiming a terms of service violation. I don't think it would
lead to legal trouble necessarily, but it might be very bad press
for the service provider.<br>
<br>
On 3/19/11 4:59 PM, Thomas Lord wrote:<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> I think we have an annoying
problem, perhaps someone can correct me<br>
> if I'm wrong:</span><br>
<br>
I agree this could be a problem, though specifically one of service
interruption.<br>
<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> There has been talk in various
contexts about having FreedomBox (FB)<br>
> interact with things like Twitter (Twit) and FaceBook (FacB).
...<br>
> <br>
> I think this might be legally unachievable.<br>
</span><br>
If a service provider decides that a FreedomBox owner is doing
something with their APIs that violates the terms of service,
they're well within their rights to cut off service.<br>
<br>
This is where I fail at being a lawyer, but I think that's as far as
it goes. I suppose if a company's legal counsel really wanted to be
a jerk and make a point, they could try drumming up some form of
"hacking" charges against someone.<br>
<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> The process of requesting and
being granted an application key comes<br>
> with legal encumbrances. There are two general kinds of
encumbrance<br>
> that matter:<br>
</span><br>
I don't think these are legal encumbrances, as such. It might more
easily turn into something with legal consequences if someone then
continues to try using the service after being banned. (ie. accused
of hacking, *then* comes legal trouble)<br>
<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> We need a legal expert to look
into the matter further but it appears<br>
> to me to be effectively impossible to write free software
programs<br>
> which interoperate as desired with the Twit API.<br>
</span><br>
Yeah, need legal expertise to review. I'm just making guesses here,
honestly.<br>
<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> (2) The mere fact that critical
APIs are protected by such<br>
> keys means that services like FacB and Twit have absolute
authority<br>
> over what client applications may and may not do.<br>
</span><br>
Absolutely true. And, one of the reasons why we're here.<br>
<br>
Of course, if a FreedomBox was cut off from accessing a service like
Twitter or Facebook, it could be turned into a nice headline
supporting the FreedomBox cause. (Assuming I'm right about the legal
stuff, because it would really suck if someone went to jail for
using Twitter, good headline or not.)<br>
<br>
-- <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:l.m.orchard@pobox.com">l.m.orchard@pobox.com</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://decafbad.com">http://decafbad.com</a><br>
{web,mad,computer} scientist<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>