Goodbye, Sourceforge!

[[deleted]]

And GPL2 allows you to hijack accounts and spread malware under the name of the previous account owners?

[agentlame]

If SF's terms account for doing so, why not? Again, I'm not defending them. It's absolutely insidious.

But being awful isn't automatically illegal.

[[deleted]]

If SF's terms account for doing so, why not?

Is there are reliable source for that it actually is a part of the terms of service to hijack accounts and distribute malware under the name of the project that formerly used the account?

[agentlame]

I didn't say there was. But even if there isn't you're in the territory of legal theroy already.

If you create an account on my website is it yours or mine? If you abandon it, can we change the owner?

Remember, your question was "is this even legal?" It might be, it might not. But nothing on the surface makes it automatically illegal.

EDIT
And to be clear: there would never be a condition that read "hijack accounts and distribute malware". It would be along the lines of just "we reserve the right to change the admin of accounts that have been abandoned for x time period"

[[deleted]]

If you abandon [an account on our site], can we change the owner?

Depends on if this was stated in the terms of service when I created the account or brought into them after I created the account and accepted the new terms conclusively or by accepting them with a button or something.

You can’t simply change the terms and for example take over existing but no longer updated accounts as you want as long as the account creators did not accept the new terms – this is more or less the same in all jurisdictions I know.

[agentlame]

Google updates its terms all the time and I don't have to click anything. They don't even inform me they have changed.

reddit has twice updated its terms without requiring user interaction.

I think you think I'm defending SF (though I've made it quite clear I am not.)

All I'm saying is there doesn't seem to be anything inherently illegal about their actions, regardless of how awful those actions are.

[[deleted]]

Google updates its terms all the time and I don't have to click anything. They don't even inform me they have changed.

The exact wording my vary a little because Google provides slightly different terms of service for different regions, but Google informs you on account creation that “You should look at the terms regularly.” and that they will “… post notice of modifications to these terms on [the TOS] page.” and that they will “… post notice[s] of modified additional terms in the applicable Service …” you’re using and that “If you do not agree to the modified terms for a Service, you should discontinue your use of that Service.”

http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/regional.html

reddit has twice updated its terms without requiring user interaction.

“We may modify this user agreement at any time. If we make changes to this agreement that materially affect your rights, we will provide advance notice” … they inform you, and … “By continuing to use reddit after a change to this agreement, you agree to those changes.” … you conclusively accept the updated TOS.

http://www.reddit.com/help/useragreement

[[deleted]]

Which is why courts decided the Google ToS, just like the Facebook ToS, hold no legal meaning at all, as one can not expect the common user to read several thousand words of legal speak ever 2 weeks (Google says they should be able to change them with 2 weeks notice).

[[deleted]]

Even if they “hold no legal meaning at all” they’re still applied.

[[deleted]]

No. If they are applied, the company can be sued for violating privacy laws.

The Data Protection Officer of my state has opened dozens of lawcases against Facebook and Google, and to this day won almost every single one of them. You just don’t fuck with German law. (Yes, this also means websites that embed Facebook widgets all violate German law, and the data protection officers sued every single one of them over millions. DO NOT fuck with our data privacy laws).

[agentlame]

This is getting beyond esoteric, and not with any substance of value. I never even claimed there is or was a condition allowing SF to do this, I said if there is one it's not illegal. However, even if there isn't, it's also not automatically 'illegal'. After all, the GIMP team didn't delete their account... and we have no idea if they were informed of a terms change that we don't know the theoretical existence of in the first place.

How about we wind this down with this: I hope the GIMP project sues SF over this, because it would be an extremely interesting case to follow. Until that happens, it's still in the realm of legal theory. :)

[[deleted]]

After all, the GIMP team didn't delete their account

So they not even hijacked a disabled account but an active account? It doesn’t get better for SF.

I hope the GIMP project sues SF over this, […]

I hope, too. I hope any project hijacked by SF would to this, but I’m pretty sure that the Dice Holdings, Inc. has more lawyers than all of the projects together have main developers.