1. You must be 18 to use Dropbox. Previously, you had to be 13 if in the United States, or 16 if higher. Dropbox may use information "Dropbox may use and rely on information from third parties, including age signals from app stores, for the purpose of enforcing this restriction."
2. Your account may be terminated if you don't have a Paid account and haven't accessed for 6 months. Previously, it was 12 months.
3. If you have multiple accounts tied to the same email address, and one is banned, the others may also be banned.
4. "Refunds are only issued if required by law." -> "Refunds are only issued in limited circumstances or if required by law."
5. You automatically agree to the new terms if you continue to have an account. Previously, it was only if you continued to use the service.
It would also potentially invalidate clauses like the one in GPL license too: "this version or any later version" — how can anyone consent to yet-unknown terms?
In this particular case and going after the summary from big85, there's one case of legal compliance (like age restrictions — it applies in appropriate jurisdictions even if the ToS is not updated) or maybe two (banning per-account vs per-owner), some widening of the terms to the benefit of the customer (like refunds being permitted in "special circumstances" on top of "required by law, with only "reductionist" change being about lowering service window for unused free accounts (in some jurisdictions, even this could be about respecting data privacy laws — companies are obligated to remove any data which is not used after a certain time, though I think this is 12 months even under GDPR).
As such, I believe this would not be a good case where you can bring enough light how this type of clause is harming one side to the contract.
For "this or any later version", I have always read this line as you get to choose which version you want to follow, not the one granting you the licence.
Yeah, but I think the main point is that the GPL 'at your option any later version' clause is a burden on the developer, not the user. Suppose that the software is under the GPLv2 (with the later version clause) and the FSF has a hostile takeover. If:
- The FSF makes a GPLv4 to remove all commercial use, it's not a problem for the user since they could stick with the GPLv2. It's not a problem for the developer either, since the extra requirement that they may not agree with is only optional (since the GPLv2 can still be used).
- The FSF makes a license that says: screw copyleft, GPLv4 is now the MIT license. Again, it's not a problem for the user, they can either continue to use the GPLv2 or make use of the additional liberties of the MIT license (e.g. using the code in close source work). But it is a problem for the developer. They chose to use a copyleft license and now everybody can grab their code and use it in closed source software, etc.
This is vastly different from the Dropbox changes, since every update of the terms affects the user.
Though even the "user" might be harmed, because you might get a device shipped to you with what-was-previously-copyleft software, and now you can't ask the vendor (also the "user") for copy of the source code since they can claim "we are using it under the terms of v4, sorry".
big85 · · focus · HN ↗
1. You must be 18 to use Dropbox. Previously, you had to be 13 if in the United States, or 16 if higher. Dropbox may use information "Dropbox may use and rely on information from third parties, including age signals from app stores, for the purpose of enforcing this restriction."
2. Your account may be terminated if you don't have a Paid account and haven't accessed for 6 months. Previously, it was 12 months.
3. If you have multiple accounts tied to the same email address, and one is banned, the others may also be banned.
4. "Refunds are only issued if required by law." -> "Refunds are only issued in limited circumstances or if required by law."
5. You automatically agree to the new terms if you continue to have an account. Previously, it was only if you continued to use the service.
6. Some terms covering Teams accounts.
applfanboysbgon · · focus · HN ↗
I would really love to see courts throw this BS out.
necovek · · focus · HN ↗
It would also potentially invalidate clauses like the one in GPL license too: "this version or any later version" — how can anyone consent to yet-unknown terms?
In this particular case and going after the summary from big85, there's one case of legal compliance (like age restrictions — it applies in appropriate jurisdictions even if the ToS is not updated) or maybe two (banning per-account vs per-owner), some widening of the terms to the benefit of the customer (like refunds being permitted in "special circumstances" on top of "required by law, with only "reductionist" change being about lowering service window for unused free accounts (in some jurisdictions, even this could be about respecting data privacy laws — companies are obligated to remove any data which is not used after a certain time, though I think this is 12 months even under GDPR).
As such, I believe this would not be a good case where you can bring enough light how this type of clause is harming one side to the contract.
Gabrys1 · · focus · HN ↗
necovek · · focus · HN ↗
"Hey, I trusted FSF to do the right thing with the next version and they did not"
They blindly accepted to honor the terms which have not yet been defined.
microtonal · · focus · HN ↗
- The FSF makes a GPLv4 to remove all commercial use, it's not a problem for the user since they could stick with the GPLv2. It's not a problem for the developer either, since the extra requirement that they may not agree with is only optional (since the GPLv2 can still be used).
- The FSF makes a license that says: screw copyleft, GPLv4 is now the MIT license. Again, it's not a problem for the user, they can either continue to use the GPLv2 or make use of the additional liberties of the MIT license (e.g. using the code in close source work). But it is a problem for the developer. They chose to use a copyleft license and now everybody can grab their code and use it in closed source software, etc.
This is vastly different from the Dropbox changes, since every update of the terms affects the user.
necovek · · focus · HN ↗
Though even the "user" might be harmed, because you might get a device shipped to you with what-was-previously-copyleft software, and now you can't ask the vendor (also the "user") for copy of the source code since they can claim "we are using it under the terms of v4, sorry".
rpdillon · · focus · HN ↗
necovek · · focus · HN ↗