TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

OwnCloud Infinite Scale added EULA that prohibits commercial use [pdf]

87 点作者 jgillich将近 2 年前

13 条评论

jasonjayr将近 2 年前
&gt; Commercial Use means corporate use intended for commercial advantage, monetary compensation or profit-making, including but not limited to e.g. offering ownCloud Infinite Scale based software-as-a-service (SaaS), platform-as-a-service (PaaS) or any other types of hosted services to a third party. Whereas scenarios in which such a commercial advantage is intended to be realized indirectly by leveraging ownCloud Infinite Scale, e.g. as a cost-free add-on or as an embedded value-add proposition for supporting monetarization of other products or services or the like constellations, is also considered as Commercial. Whereas, Private Use and Productive Use are explicitly NOT considered as Commercial.<p>&gt; Productive Use means the use of ownCloud Infinite Scale by an Organization in its productive day to day business or for testing, evaluation or development purposes and solely within the specifications and use-cases for which it was designed and released by licensor.<p>If my reading of this is right -- this basically boils down to &quot;You cannot host this for commercial use for someone else. You may self-host this in a commercial setting for your own business&quot; -- basically an Anti-AWS clause to protect against the ElasticSearch&#x2F;OpenSearch thing.
评论 #36664882 未加载
评论 #36670835 未加载
Y_Y将近 2 年前
&gt; &quot;By installing, copying or otherwise using ... you agree to be bound by ... &quot;<p>Why do people keep writing shit like this. Whoever wrote that EULA no doubt has an understanding of contract law and knows that you can&#x27;t just unilaterally bind someone into an agreement like that. I know it&#x27;s classic EULA nonsense, but it still bugs me how you can just write whatever and hope people naively take your word on it.
评论 #36664559 未加载
评论 #36664663 未加载
评论 #36664487 未加载
评论 #36664282 未加载
评论 #36664321 未加载
评论 #36664793 未加载
评论 #36675516 未加载
dragooc将近 2 年前
With this PR <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;owncloud&#x2F;ocis&#x2F;pull&#x2F;6755">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;owncloud&#x2F;ocis&#x2F;pull&#x2F;6755</a> I tried to make the policy a bit more clear after we got a nice issue report about it.<p>To be clear: only binary builds of stable versions of Infinite Scale that the ownCloud company is shipping are protected by the EULA. The source code license is Apache2 or AGPL for some parts, and is not touched by this of course.<p>The EULA even allows free use widely, including private, non-commercial and in commercial contexts. It does not allow hosting.<p>We hope to provide a clear and understandable regulation for the project with this, that is protecting our efforts to a certain degree.
评论 #36666701 未加载
评论 #36664902 未加载
评论 #36670887 未加载
ndsipa_pomu将近 2 年前
Are they trying to push people towards NextCloud instead?<p>I&#x27;ve been running an OwnCloud instance at work for some years and more recently a NextCloud instance at home. I was thinking that NextCloud was going to be the eventual upgrade path away from OwnCloud, but with their &quot;Infinite Scale&quot; reworking of it, I thought that maybe they were looking to take the lead again. I don&#x27;t know if our usage is considered &quot;commercial&quot; as we&#x27;re self-hosting it and not re-selling usage of it, but it could be simpler to just migrate if they ever choose to get litigious about it.
评论 #36664189 未加载
评论 #36664399 未加载
hoistbypetard将近 2 年前
The source code is still apache2 licensed, according to the README[1]. That says<p>&gt; Some builds of stable ownCloud Infinite Scale releases provided by ownCloud GmbH are subject to an End User License Agreement.<p>That seems to be exactly the kind of thing that the apache2 license permits.<p>[1](<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;owncloud&#x2F;ocis&#x2F;tree&#x2F;master">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;owncloud&#x2F;ocis&#x2F;tree&#x2F;master</a>)<p>It also only seems sensible... if you&#x27;re offering something like OwnCloud as SaaS, you should probably know enough about it to do your own builds from source.
q3k将近 2 年前
This seems to only be about binary builds &#x2F; &#x27;stable releases&#x27;?<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;owncloud&#x2F;ocis#end-user-license-agreement">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;owncloud&#x2F;ocis#end-user-license-agreement</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;owncloud&#x2F;ocis&#x2F;issues&#x2F;6570">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;owncloud&#x2F;ocis&#x2F;issues&#x2F;6570</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;owncloud&#x2F;ocis&#x2F;pull&#x2F;6755&#x2F;files">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;owncloud&#x2F;ocis&#x2F;pull&#x2F;6755&#x2F;files</a>
VoxPelli将近 2 年前
The code is Apache 2.0 licensed though? Can they really add a limitation like this?
评论 #36664563 未加载
评论 #36664199 未加载
sneak将近 2 年前
So, no longer open source?<p>Do they own copyright to all of the code that allows them to relicense it like that?
评论 #36664899 未加载
评论 #36664461 未加载
评论 #36664477 未加载
paulnpace将近 2 年前
Is it binding if I don&#x27;t have a tool to read .pdf, as .pdf is not required to use the software (or to download from GitHub)?
justinclift将近 2 年前
Isn&#x27;t that a strange way to do things, as it&#x27;s not a licence?<p>That EULA document is for end users, so has no bearing upon non-end-users of the software. For example, developers.<p>So, developers should be able to fork the repo, change that EULA file to something else (or even just remove it), then do what they want with it.
IceWreck将近 2 年前
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;owncloud&#x2F;ocis&#x2F;pull&#x2F;6755">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;owncloud&#x2F;ocis&#x2F;pull&#x2F;6755</a> - its only for published binary builds.
cvccvroomvroom将近 2 年前
Pseudo FOSS with giant strings hostile to users&#x27; freedom. They should just go closed source and force binding arbitration.
api将近 2 年前
Heaven forbid businesses pay for open source software. Paying for closed-in-every-way SaaS is fine though.