[Fedora-legal-list] Status of ICQ-related apps in Fedora.

R P Herrold herrold at owlriver.com
Wed May 5 13:47:07 UTC 2010

Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 5 May 2010, Peter Lemenkov wrote:

> It seems, that *all* 3rd party software, which is should connect to
> ICQ networks for normal operation, violates their EULA (or urges users
> to violate EULA).
> Any opinions?

more a matter of 'politics', rather than legal

This is a slippery slope.  Fedora has no mandate to be a 
private contractual analysis or enforcement venue (I think 

'vetting' software license terms for freedom is one thing; 
avoiding affirmative legal (of matters of governmentally 
promulgated law) prohibitions ... here, patent, trademark, 

I am not aware of a general governmentally imposed legal duty 
to ** not ** publish software that MIGHT be use to act in a 
way a matter of 'private law' [here: a contract]

One cannot know all laws of all jurisdictions of the world. 
Red Hat as the owner of the Fedora project ultimately will 
override any call that might get it subject to liability 
within the jurisdictions it operates. (one assumes ...)

Even more tellingly, one cannot begin know all possible 
contracts purporting to govern or impair actions by third 
parties.  To try to do so leads to 'analysis paralysis' and 
simply never doing anything.  The prior para. as to Red Hat's 
ability to protect itself and its actions applies here as well

If a person signing the Fedora CLA is uncomfortable 
proceeding, they need to opt of participating

But really, a lay person has to decide for themself, possibly 
with the advice of counsel.

This venue, it seems to me, has to not open up the infinite 
alleys of playing lawyer and 'enforcing' private contract 
pairings beyond statutory prohibition or 'tortious' [asserted 
wrongful acts, not arising our of contract] conduct.

- ---------------start disclaimer-------------------

I_A_AL, but not your lawyer.  I offer legal advice and formal
opinion only within the confines of a previously  established 
and explicit attorney-client relationship where privilege may 
be had;  and NEVER on a public list server.

- ----------------end disclaimers ------------------

As I say, a slippery slope, and a personal actions 
('body politic') question rather than a 'fedora-legal' one (I 

- -- Russ herrold

Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)


More information about the legal mailing list