[gentoo-dev] New license: yEd Software License Agreement

[gentoo-dev] New license: yEd Software License Agreement

[Amadeusz Żołnowski]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 111 bytes --]

Hi,

I'd like to add attached license to portage/licenses/.  Any objections?


-- 
Amadeusz Żołnowski

[-- Attachment #1.2: yEd --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 4221 bytes --]

yEd Software License Agreement
Version 1.1

This is a legal agreement ("this Agreement") between yWorks GmbH ("yWorks") and the licensee ("the Licensee"). yWorks licenses the yEd Software ("the Software") only if all the following terms are accepted by the Licensee. The Software includes the yEd byte code executable and any files and documents associated with it.

By installing the Software, the Licensee is indicating that he/she has read and understands this Agreement and agrees to be bound by its terms and conditions. If this Agreement is unacceptable to the Licensee, the Licensee must destroy any copies of the Software in the Licensee's possession immediately.

1. LICENSE CONDITIONS

The Licensee is granted a non-exclusive and non-transferable right to install one copy of the Software and use it as an application. The Software may not be used as part of an automated process. The Licensee may not reverse engineer, disassemble, decompile, or unjar the Software, or otherwise attempt to derive the source code of the Software.

The Licensee acknowledges that Software furnished hereunder is under test and may be defective. No claims whatsoever can be made on yWorks based on any expectation about the Software.

2. TERM, TERMINATION AND SURVIVAL

The Licensee may terminate this Agreement at any time by destroying all copies of the Software in possession.

If the Licensee fails to comply with any term of this Agreement, this Agreement is terminated and the Licensee has no further right to use the Software.

On termination, the Licensee shall have no claim on or arising from the Software. The Software and any copies shall be destroyed.

3. NO WARRANTY

The Software is licensed to the Licensee on an "AS IS" basis. The Licensee is solely responsible for determining the suitability of the Software and accepts full responsibility and risks associated with the use of the Software.

4. MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT

yWorks is not required to provide maintenance or support to the Licensee.

5. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

In no event will yWorks be liable for any damages, including but not limited to any loss of revenue, profit, or data, however caused, directly or indirectly, by the Software or by this Agreement.

6. DISTRIBUTION

No distribution is to be made of the Software by the Licensee. The Licensee may make one copy of the Software for backup purpose only.

7. AVAILABILITY

The Software is not available to those not permitted by law to have access to the Software.

8. INSERTION OF MARKER

The Software may insert some markers into any output files to identify that the files are generated by the Software. yWorks bears no responsibility for any damages arising.

9. MISCELLANEOUS

This agreement is made and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of Germany.

THIRD-PARTY SOFTWARE AND LICENSES

This Software makes use of the Batik SVG Toolkit, Apache XMLBeans, and Apache POI. The Apache Software License (http://xml.apache.org/batik) applies to them.

This Software makes use of the JIDE Docking Framework and JIDE Action Framework licensed from JIDE Software (http://www.jidesoft.com).

This Software uses icons licensed from Incors GmbH (http://www.incors.com).

This Software includes a Swing LnF created by JGoodies and the dom4j library. The BSD License (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.html) applies to them.

This Software makes use of the FreeHEP VectorGraphics library (http://java.freehep.org). The GNU LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE, Version 2.1 (http://java.freehep.org/vectorgraphics/license.html) applies to it.

This Software makes use of the JavaHelp System (https://javahelp.dev.java.net/). The GNU General Public License - Version 2 (https://javahelp.dev.java.net/license.txt) with the class path exception applies to it.

This Software makes use of the svg-viewer rendering engine (http://code.google.com/p/svg-viewer/). The MIT License (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php) applies to it.

The installer for this Software may contain a Java Runtime Environment (JRE) (http://java.com). The SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. BINARY CODE LICENSE AGREEMENT with SUPPLEMENTAL LICENSE TERMS (http://java.com/en/download/license.jsp) applies to it. 

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: New license: yEd Software License Agreement

[Amadeusz Żołnowski]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 87 bytes --]


This license would go to EULA group.  Is this correct?

-- 
Amadeusz Żołnowski

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: New license: yEd Software License Agreement

[Duncan]

Amadeusz Żołnowski posted on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:30:32 +0200 as excerpted:

> This license would go to EULA group.  Is this correct?


That appears to be correct to me, yes.

No distribution allowed.  You're going to be doing restrict=mirror, 
correct?

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New license: yEd Software License Agreement

[Amadeusz Żołnowski]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 234 bytes --]

Excerpts from Duncan's message of 2012-04-27 15:38:20 +0200:
> No distribution allowed.  You're going to be doing restrict=mirror,
> correct?

Why RESTRICT=mirror? I'd put RESTRICT=fetch, actually.


-- 
Amadeusz Żołnowski

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: New license: yEd Software License Agreement

[Duncan]

Amadeusz Żołnowski posted on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:45:36 +0200 as excerpted:

> Excerpts from Duncan's message of 2012-04-27 15:38:20 +0200:
>> No distribution allowed.  You're going to be doing restrict=mirror,
>> correct?
> 
> Why RESTRICT=mirror? I'd put RESTRICT=fetch, actually.

That works.  RESTRICT=fetch is stricter so works, but I'm not sure 
whether it's necessary as I've not paid attention to the legal 
distinctions since both are out of the question here, but certainly, 
gentoo can't distribute, so restrict=mirror for sure.  Whether it merits 
restrict=fetch or not I'll let someone else worry about.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New license: yEd Software License Agreement

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Amadeusz Żołnowski <aidecoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Excerpts from Duncan's message of 2012-04-27 15:38:20 +0200:
>> No distribution allowed.  You're going to be doing restrict=mirror,
>> correct?
>
> Why RESTRICT=mirror? I'd put RESTRICT=fetch, actually.
>

I don't see much point in using RESTRICT=fetch unless there is no URL
available to fetch.  I think RESTRICT=mirror should be sufficient in
most cases to cover situations where we are not allowed to
redistribute, and is consistent with what we do across the tree.

Consistency is very important where there are legal concerns.
Otherwise our actions with one ebuild will be used to argue that our
actions on another ebuild are wrong.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New license: yEd Software License Agreement

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 941 bytes --]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 02:26:07PM +0000, Duncan wrote:
> Amadeusz Żołnowski posted on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:45:36 +0200 as excerpted:
> 
> > Excerpts from Duncan's message of 2012-04-27 15:38:20 +0200:
> >> No distribution allowed.  You're going to be doing restrict=mirror,
> >> correct?
> > 
> > Why RESTRICT=mirror? I'd put RESTRICT=fetch, actually.
> 
> That works.  RESTRICT=fetch is stricter so works, but I'm not sure 
> whether it's necessary as I've not paid attention to the legal 
> distinctions since both are out of the question here, but certainly, 
> gentoo can't distribute, so restrict=mirror for sure.  Whether it merits 
> restrict=fetch or not I'll let someone else worry about.

Definitely you should use restrict=mirror.

Restrict=fetch is used when a user has to go to a web site and register
or accept a license on the web site before they download the file the
way I understand it.

William


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: New license: yEd Software License Agreement

[Duncan]

William Hubbs posted on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:34:05 -0500 as excerpted:

> Restrict=fetch is used when a user has to go to a web site and register
> or accept a license on the web site before they download the file the
> way I understand it.

Thanks.  I thought restrict=fetch was for when a website acceptance was 
required, but upon being pressed, I realized I wasn't sure enough about 
it to be comfortable trying to explain it.

Tho FWIW I think restrict=fetch applies to stuff like cd/dvd-based game 
data as well, where the agreement is on the cd not a website, but still 
requires specific click-thru.  IOW, manual click-thru and fetch, 
regardless of whether it's from local device, or from the net.  If we're 
just forbidden from distributing but can still script an auto-fetch (they 
just want to be sure they control distribution, mainly), then it's 
restrict=mirror.  If we can't script an auto-fetch either, generally due 
to direct click-thru agreement required, it's restrict=fetch.

My definitely non-professional legal understanding, of course.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New license: yEd Software License Agreement

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
> Tho FWIW I think restrict=fetch applies to stuff like cd/dvd-based game
> data as well, where the agreement is on the cd not a website, but still
> requires specific click-thru.

I think the real determiner should almost always be whether there is a
URL that you can reliably fetch or not.

If you're talking about a CD there is nothing to fetch.  If you want
somebody to copy a file off of a CD and stick it in distfiles then
RESTRICT=fetch makes perfect sense, but it has nothing to do with
licensing, but the fact that no consistent URL exists.

Legally the basic issue is whether linking to something is the same as
distributing it.  I'm open to a lawyer's summary, but my sense is that
the case law around this is very messy, especially on an international
scale.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New license: yEd Software License Agreement

[Amadeusz Żołnowski]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1766 bytes --]

Excerpts from William Hubbs's message of 2012-04-27 16:34:05 +0200:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 02:26:07PM +0000, Duncan wrote:
> > Amadeusz Żołnowski posted on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:45:36 +0200 as
> > excerpted:
> > 
> > > Excerpts from Duncan's message of 2012-04-27 15:38:20 +0200:
> > >> No distribution allowed.  You're going to be doing
> > >> restrict=mirror, correct?
> > > 
> > > Why RESTRICT=mirror? I'd put RESTRICT=fetch, actually.
> > 
> > That works.  RESTRICT=fetch is stricter so works, but I'm not sure
> > whether it's necessary as I've not paid attention to the legal
> > distinctions since both are out of the question here, but certainly,
> > gentoo can't distribute, so restrict=mirror for sure.  Whether it
> > merits restrict=fetch or not I'll let someone else worry about.
> 
> Definitely you should use restrict=mirror.
> 
> Restrict=fetch is used when a user has to go to a web site and
> register or accept a license on the web site before they download the
> file the way I understand it.

And this is probably the case when user has to accept a license on the
website.  This is URL for zip archive of yEd-3.9.1:

  http://www.yworks.com/en/products_download.php?file=yEd-3.9.1.zip

It directs to website with license text, check-box for accept and
download button.  If check-box is not set, following message is shown:

  "In order to download yEd, it is necessary that you first accept the
  license terms."

If check-box is set, client is redirected to the page with actual link to
zip archive.

Moreover, I have had email conversation with yWorks representative and
he says that installation files need to be obtained manually by the end
users from their website.


-- 
Amadeusz Żołnowski

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: New license: yEd Software License Agreement

[Amadeusz Żołnowski]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 276 bytes --]

> I'd like to add attached license to portage/licenses/.  Any objections?

Because there seem to be no objection wrt license itself, I've just
committed it.  I'll wait with adding ebuild until we get some consensus
wrt RESTRICT=fetch/mirror.

-- 
Amadeusz Żołnowski

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New license: yEd Software License Agreement

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Amadeusz Żołnowski <aidecoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> And this is probably the case when user has to accept a license on the
> website.  This is URL for zip archive of yEd-3.9.1:
>
>  http://www.yworks.com/en/products_download.php?file=yEd-3.9.1.zip
>
> It directs to website with license text, check-box for accept and
> download button.  If check-box is not set, following message is shown:
>
>  "In order to download yEd, it is necessary that you first accept the
>  license terms."
>
> If check-box is set, client is redirected to the page with actual link to
> zip archive.

It turns out the vendor is lying - you can download it fine without
accepting the license from:
http://www.yworks.com/products/yed/demo/yEd-3.9.1.zip

No doubt the vendor WANTS users to accept the license first, but it is
not "necessary" from a technical standpoint.

>
> Moreover, I have had email conversation with yWorks representative and
> he says that installation files need to be obtained manually by the end
> users from their website.
>

Again, they likely intend for them to be obtained in this manner, but
the word "need" is not true from a technical perspective.

This brings up a debate that was recently held over deep-linking in
bugzilla over a math library.  The trustees never took a final vote
since the maintainer decided to just implement RESTRICT=fetch.  The
issue there was about more than just copyright, however, and the trade
regulations around munitions do not apply in this case.

I don't think we have clear policy around this situation.  I see our options as:
1.  Set RESTRICT=fetch because upstream wants us to and we like to cooperate.
2.  Set RESTRICT=fetch because even if legally they're on shaky ground
upstream could probably waste a lot of our time and money.
3.  Set RESTRICT=mirror because legally we think we have the right to
do so, and want to stand for our principles and make life easier for
our users.

The potential upstream responses to doing #3 might be to do nothing,
to not like us, to sue us, or to not use a fixed URL to distribute the
file so that we have to restrict fetching for technical reasons.

Do we as a matter of policy want to respect broken click-through
download implementations?

Rich

[gentoo-dev] Re: New license: yEd Software License Agreement

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 27/04/12 20:38, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Amadeusz Żołnowski<aidecoe@gentoo.org>  wrote:
>>
>> And this is probably the case when user has to accept a license on the
>> website.  This is URL for zip archive of yEd-3.9.1:
>>
>>   http://www.yworks.com/en/products_download.php?file=yEd-3.9.1.zip
>>
>> It directs to website with license text, check-box for accept and
>> download button.  If check-box is not set, following message is shown:
>>
>>   "In order to download yEd, it is necessary that you first accept the
>>   license terms."
>>
>> If check-box is set, client is redirected to the page with actual link to
>> zip archive.
>
> It turns out the vendor is lying - you can download it fine without
> accepting the license from:
> http://www.yworks.com/products/yed/demo/yEd-3.9.1.zip
>
> No doubt the vendor WANTS users to accept the license first, but it is
> not "necessary" from a technical standpoint.

Didn't the user already accept the license by putting it in 
ACCEPT_LICENSE?  If not, portage will not download it.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New license: yEd Software License Agreement

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@gmail.com> wrote:
> Didn't the user already accept the license by putting it in ACCEPT_LICENSE?
>  If not, portage will not download it.
>

Well, I'd argue that it is impossible to "accept a license" in the
first place.  It is possible to agree to a contract if there is
consideration on both sides and a meeting of the minds.

Copyright says you can't copy something.  A license says you might be
able to.  You don't have to "accept" a license to benefit it.  A
license does not restrict what a user can do, it restricts what the
person issuing the license can do (I can't sue you for redistributing
my code if I licensed it to you under the GPL).  Some licenses are
conditional - I only limit my own ability to sue you if you give
people a copy of the source for any binary you give them, and if you
don't do that I am now free to sue you.

Ultimately the foundation for licenses is copyright law, and other
forms of IP law.  Copyright says we can't distribute anything we don't
create except under very specific circumstances.  A license says that
we can distribute stuff without fear of lawsuit under some conditions.

The yEd license says we can't distribute anything, so as far as I can
see, we might as well not have any license at all.  We're not
protected at all from a lawsuit, except to the degree that we don't do
anything that we can be sued for (like distributing their software).

But yes, from a technical standpoint you can only install a package if
its license is contained in ACCEPT_LICENSE.  Whether this has any
legal meaning is up to you or a court with jurisdiction to decide.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New license: yEd Software License Agreement

[Amadeusz Żołnowski]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 998 bytes --]

We have had a talk about yEd on #gentoo-dev which is worth attaching
here:

  <@ulm> aidecoe: I suspect that yEd is in violation of the GPL :/
  <@ulm> their package zip file includes JavaHelp classes but no source code for them
  <@ulm> and I also don't see it at their site
  <@ulm> neither do they include the GPL license text
  <@aidecoe> ulm: they provide links in their license
  <@ulm> that's not enough
  <@ulm> read the GPL ;)
  <@aidecoe> yes, i have read
  <@aidecoe> some time ago
  <@ulm> what's probably worse, they pack that GPLed software into their jar
  <@ulm> and in clause 1 of the yed license they forbid to unjar it
  <@aidecoe> yes, that's not fair
  <@ulm> and in clause 6 they forbid distribution
  <@ulm> I'm pretty sure that this contradicts the GPL
  <@ulm> aidecoe: that would be another reason for mirror restriction ;)
  <@aidecoe> ulm: i'll mail them about it


I have just sent nice e-mail to yWorks about this.


-- 
Amadeusz Żołnowski

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New license: yEd Software License Agreement

[Roy Bamford]

On 2012.04.27 18:38, Rich Freeman wrote:

[snip]
 
> Do we as a matter of policy want to respect broken click-through
> download implementations?
> 
> Rich
> 
Yes we do.

Intent it what counts in the eyes of the law in most places.
Sites with broken click-throughs intend for them to be used.


-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New license: yEd Software License Agreement

[Alec Warner]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Didn't the user already accept the license by putting it in ACCEPT_LICENSE?
>>  If not, portage will not download it.
>>
>
> Well, I'd argue that it is impossible to "accept a license" in the
> first place.  It is possible to agree to a contract if there is
> consideration on both sides and a meeting of the minds.

That doesn't mean you didn't / cannot accept, merely that some (all?)
provisions are likely unenforceable in a court of law. I don't think
EULAs have been ruled illegal yet.

>
> Copyright says you can't copy something.  A license says you might be
> able to.  You don't have to "accept" a license to benefit it.  A
> license does not restrict what a user can do, it restricts what the
> person issuing the license can do (I can't sue you for redistributing
> my code if I licensed it to you under the GPL).  Some licenses are
> conditional - I only limit my own ability to sue you if you give
> people a copy of the source for any binary you give them, and if you
> don't do that I am now free to sue you.

Have you read the yEd license? I mean it does restrict what users can do:

"By installing the Software, the Licensee is indicating that he/she
has read and understands this Agreement and agrees to be bound by its
terms and conditions."

"The Licensee is granted a non-exclusive and non-transferable right to
install one copy of the Software and use it as an application. The
Software may not be used as part of an automated process. The Licensee
may not reverse engineer, disassemble, decompile, or unjar the
Software, or otherwise attempt to derive the source code of the
Software."

How is that not restricting what the end user can do? A court of law
could find a number of wiggle areas (what does it mean to 'install the
software' for instance, in some countries reverse engineering is fair
user and this right cannot be taken away by a license, etc..)

>
> Ultimately the foundation for licenses is copyright law, and other
> forms of IP law.  Copyright says we can't distribute anything we don't
> create except under very specific circumstances.  A license says that
> we can distribute stuff without fear of lawsuit under some conditions.

I don't think we are talking solely about redistribution rights but
also end user rights (EULA.) In this case their license (tries to)
cover both aspects.

>
> The yEd license says we can't distribute anything, so as far as I can
> see, we might as well not have any license at all.  We're not
> protected at all from a lawsuit, except to the degree that we don't do
> anything that we can be sued for (like distributing their software).
>
> But yes, from a technical standpoint you can only install a package if
> its license is contained in ACCEPT_LICENSE.  Whether this has any
> legal meaning is up to you or a court with jurisdiction to decide.

Its unclear if ACCEPT_LICENSE actually implies the user read and
accepted the EULA; but since the EULA is implicit w/installing the
software it is unclear to me (in my lay opinion) if this actually
matters.

>
> Rich
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New license: yEd Software License Agreement

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
> That doesn't mean you didn't / cannot accept, merely that some (all?)
> provisions are likely unenforceable in a court of law. I don't think
> EULAs have been ruled illegal yet.

I doubt that my proclamation that you aren't allowed to eat breakfast
has been ruled illegal yet either.  Fortunately that has no bearing on
whether you need to listen to me.  :)

Oh, and I also proclaim that you accept my proclamation by choosing to
eat your next meal.  Fortunately in reality that has no bearing on
whether you accept my agreement either.  Just because a publisher says
that the terms of a contract of adhesion are binding on you by virtue
of your taking some action does not make it so.

Courts have ruled inconsistently on whether EULAs can be enforced.
Then again, Missouri is one of those places where courts have ruled
that software is not sold but licensed, and the Foundation is
incorporated there (as well as in New Mexico).  So, perhaps there is
some element of risk here, though I'd have to read the court decisions
to see whether the fact that the software is free impacts the
enforcability of the EULA.

That makes me wonder whether we should consider more carefully where
we incorporate - if it makes us more subject to local jurisdiction it
probably isn't a good idea to incorporate in multiple jurisdictions
since it allows a potential plaintiff to venue shop.

Rich

[gentoo-dev] Re: New license: yEd Software License Agreement

[Duncan]

Alec Warner posted on Sat, 28 Apr 2012 11:53:03 -0700 as excerpted:

> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

>> I'd argue that it is impossible to "accept a license" in the
>> first place.  It is possible to agree to a contract if there is
>> consideration on both sides and a meeting of the minds.
> 
> That doesn't mean you didn't / cannot accept, merely that some (all?)
> provisions are likely unenforceable in a court of law. I don't think
> EULAs have been ruled illegal yet.
> 
>> Copyright says you can't copy something.  A license says you might be
>> able to.  You don't have to "accept" a license to benefit it.  A
>> license does not restrict what a user can do, it restricts what the
>> person issuing the license can do (I can't sue you for redistributing
>> my code if I licensed it to you under the GPL).  Some licenses are
>> conditional - I only limit my own ability to sue you if you give people
>> a copy of the source for any binary you give them, and if you don't do
>> that I am now free to sue you.
> 
> Have you read the yEd license? I mean it does restrict what users can
> do:

> "The Software may not be used as part of an automated process. The
> Licensee may not reverse engineer, disassemble, decompile, or unjar
> the Software, or otherwise attempt to derive the source code of the
> Software."
> 
> How is that not restricting what the end user can do?

I believe he's viewing it in the context many explanations of the the GPL 
take pains to explain, namely:

Since copyright law prohibits copying (and in some cases, reading into 
computer memory for purposes of execution has been held to be copying in 
the context of copyright as well!!) without permission in the first 
place, it is as rich0 says, COPYRIGHT law that default-forbids doing 
anything at all with that string of binary data that happens to form the 
software.

As rich0 further points out, licenses modify that default-no state to 
allow the user some privileges they'd otherwise be denied by copyright 
law.  Many of them, including the GNU General Public License (GPL) and 
the yEd license, do so conditionally.  They allow the privileges IF AND 
ONLY IF certain conditions are met.

In the case of the GPL, these conditions, only apply to distributors, 
mere end-users are free and clear of all such conditions as long as they 
don't redistribute to others.  Further, the conditions on distributors 
are designed to ensure that end users of any derived programs get the 
same rights from the folks that distribute it to them.

In the case of most EULAs including the yEd license, by contrast, 
distribution is simply reserved as a right to the owning company 
(separate agreements are needed for distribution rights), and permission 
to copy and use the work under copyright is granted to the end-user only 
under rather severe conditions.  But from the viewpoint of copyright, 
it's simply an agreement by the owner to give you permission to copy and 
use under certain stated conditions, thus limiting their right to sue, 
but only to the extent that you're in compliance with the (in the case of 
most EULAs, conditional to an extreme) license (which is itself limited 
by laws that grant various "fair use" rights that differ by jurisdiction).

Thus, by this view, a EULA isn't limiting to the user, because all it's 
doing is granting (perhaps conditional) rights that would otherwise be 
reserved to the copyright owner only, under copyright law.  Someone can 
thus choose not to be subject to the license, or simply to ignore it 
entirely.  That's fine as long as they aren't doing something that 
copyright says they can be sued for.  But if they are doing something 
copyright says they could be sued for, and they draw the attention of the 
owner and/or their legal representatives, then to the extent that the 
license allows it, it's in their interest to claim the legal coverage of 
the license to prevent being sued by that owner/owner-representative.

Which is what makes relatively liberal licenses such as the GPL so 
strong.  Since they allow so much, with relatively light conditions, it's 
very strongly in the interest of parties who might otherwise be sued to 
comply with the GPL instead.  With rather more restrictive EULAs, not so 
much, since the EULA has such strict conditions.  In that case, it's far 
harder to comply with and far more likely that a copyright violator will 
be violating the EULA's conditions as well, so claiming the protections 
of the license doesn't tend to help as much, except to the extent that 
there really is a disagreement about the conditions of said license.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman