Agreement with ICQ
mark at kingant.net
Sun May 22 21:09:31 EDT 2011
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Kevin Stange <kstange at pidgin.im> wrote:
> On 05/21/2011 09:05 AM, Ivan Komarov wrote:
>> I admit it sounds weird, but, as far as I understand, the worst that
>> can happen after we sign it is that ICQ orders us to remove the ICQ
>> support from libpurple (which they can do in any case). IANAL, though,
>> and I think we really should talk to our lawyers (if we have any, that
>> is :)) before we do anything.
> If we sign the contract we suddenly have terms for what we can and
> cannot do. Currently we are subject to no agreement, which means we can
> do whatever we want that's legal. Maintaining a 3rd party client by
> observing protocol behavior is not illegal (in the US anyway).
> All that they can do is *ask* us not to support ICQ if we don't sign
> this contract. They cannot order us to remove ICQ support. We've
> supported protocols without authorization in the past, and AOL battled
> 3rd party clients for a long time. If ICQ wants to repeat the history
> of AOL and try to block third party clients that haven't agreed to their
> terms, that might be a fun game to play.
I believe this is all correct. I'll add that services on the internet
prohibit users from accessing the service via unofficial clients.
However, this restriction falls upon end-users, not upon us as
developers of the client.
More information about the Devel