big85
10 hours ago
Major changes:
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.
rpozarickij
9 hours ago
> Your account may be terminated if you don't have a Paid account and haven't accessed for 6 months
I hope file sync is treated as "access", otherwise this would make me anxious.
helsinkiandrew
3 hours ago
At least they claim they will give 'reasonable advance notification':
> We’ll provide you with reasonable advance notice via the email address associated with your account to remedy the activity that prompted us to contact you and give you the opportunity to export Your Stuff from our Services. If after such notice you fail to take the steps we ask of you, we’ll terminate or suspend your access to the Services.
applfanboysbgon
9 hours ago
> 5. You automatically agree to the new terms if you continue to have an account.
I would really love to see courts throw this BS out.
necovek
9 hours ago
I agree with you in principle.
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
9 hours ago
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.
necovek
9 hours ago
Certainly, but would that even be enforceable from a perspective of the grantee?
"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
8 hours ago
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.
necovek
8 hours ago
Yes, the developer is the grantee in my comment.
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".
microtonal
7 hours ago
Good point. IANAL, but I think that is more murky terrain. Downstream redistributors like the vendor are not allowed to remove copyright notices, so I think the notice to get it under the GPLv2 or later is passed to the user as well. Not sure which one would weigh stronger then, the copyright notice or the claim of the vendor to ship under a newer version of the license.
Another question is whether a newer version would even apply if it was not in the same spirit as the included GPL version, since the license also states:
The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
Again, IANAL, but I always felt like many of the parts of the GPL are ambiguous and the interpretation would only become clear in a court case.
For the GPLv2 there is already a lot of malicious things a vendor can do anyway. In contrast to the GPLv3, GPLv2 does not have the 'anti-tivoization'-clause. So, even though the vendor may be required to provide source code, you may not be able to run the software with your modifications anyway, because the vendor uses a bootloader that will only run software that they sign.
mitxela
4 hours ago
* A German court process found that the GPLv2 does have an anti-tivoization clause
* If the FSF published something clearly against the spirit, like "Microsoft can take ownership of your IP", it is not clear a judge would allow this. If it's within the same spirit, like "you agree to allow forks that aren't substantially different to use your trademark", they probably would. Legal loopholes aren't like computer hacking, they are social engineering.
* If I can use it under GPLv2 and GPLv2 allows me to redistribute it under GPLv2, then I can redistribute it under GPLv2. "Or later" means that I can pick a version to comply with, not that I have to comply with all of them simultaneously. So I can always remove the "or later" clause. I can also change it to "GPLv3 or later" since I may choose to comply with any subset of the allowed licenses (here all of them except for GPLv2).
rpdillon
4 hours ago
Yes, that clause hinges on both parties trusting the FSF to adhere to free software principles. So far this has been an extremely good assumption.
necovek
2 hours ago
I am not questioning the integrity of FSF, but whether the "or any later version" would hold up in court in principle.
kowa_es
8 hours ago
[dead]