However I stand by my criticism that it is not possible to know if you are violating the license or not. I don’t want to have to learn and follow Czech law to use a git client. Why does this agreement cover how I use third party services and who defines what qualifies as interfering? How far does my obligation to not allow others to reverse engineer the application go? What rights might third parties have under Czech law that I have to worry about while using the software?
Compare Microsoft Windows’s license:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms/Retail/Windows/10/U...
It also says you can’t reverse engineer, but it does not obligate you to stop others. It’s section about online service is a little bit more explicit about what is not allowed. There are no other requirements to follow every law of a particular jurisdiction while using the software.
Surely this applies to anyone using a piece of US-made software living outside the US. And without a governing law clause, isn't it always ambiguous?
Why does this agreement cover how I use third party services and who defines what qualifies as interfering?
Who am I to judge. That's what they want.
How far does my obligation to not allow others to reverse engineer the application go? What rights might third parties have under Czech law that I have to worry about while using the software?
Now that's a good question and the license should be clearer on that.
I don't think most software licenses say you can't violate some country's laws while using it. It is already illegal to do the illegal thing.
> Who am I to judge. That's what they want.
I'm not judging either. I am not able to confidently follow these terms, so I won't use the software. No hard feelings.
I'm guessing that the license author's intention was to avoid legal liability for people doing illegal things with their software. Usually this is addressed with some language in the license about limitation of liability or or indemnification. For example, see section 3.8 of Atlassian's software agreement:
OK, not allowed to use it for reverse engineering or other research the DMCA attempts to block?
Also, those quotes are taken out of context for dramatic effect:
You will not engage in using this Software that will interfere with or damage the operation of the services of any third parties by overburdening/disabling network resources through automated queries, excessive usage or similar conduct.
You will not use this Software to engage in any activity that will violate the rights of third parties, including, without limitation, through the use, public display, public performance, reproduction, distribution, or modification of communications or materials that infringe copyrights, trademarks, publicity rights, privacy rights, other proprietary rights, or rights against defamation of third parties.
GP is really trying hard to smear this author for some reason, but you read the actual license you'll see that their criticism is based on fiction.