This question already has an answer here:

I'm wondering where on StackExchange I could ask for how other people interpret a specific license agreement and also whether people have rejected to agree to the specific liencese agreement because of certain aspects within it.

It would be very helpful to gain insights from other people's view on the specific service agreement in order to decide whether or not to agree to the license and start using the service.

The specific service I'm interested in is Firebase. Their terms of service states in section 3.2 that:

You hereby grant Company an irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable license, with rights to sublicense, to use, reproduce, modify, display, perform and create derivative works of the Applications, the Content and the Brand Features and Marks for the sole purpose of allowing the Company to provide the Company Software and the Services to You.

For me it is very important that the content I would put into my Firebase database would remain mine and that it would only be used by/accessible to those that I explicitly grant access.

The license agreement says that I would grant Firebase the right to use the content (which is something I do not wish to agree to), but on the other hand it also says that Firebase is only granted to do so for the sole purpose of providing the service to me.

I'm confused by this and would appreciate any sites that I can ask questions about this issue.

marked as duplicate by gnat, Ward, Glorfindel, rene, Werner Nov 20 '17 at 16:48

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.


Try Law Stack Exchange.

Law deals with questions about - well, the law. Specifically, the help center says that you can ask about

  • Statutes or court decisions
  • Legal terms and language, doctrines and theory
  • Legal process and procedure
  • Historical legal applications
  • Dealing with legal professionals

Your question would seem to fall under the second and/or third points.

The one issue that always seems to come up when discussion a question's suitability for Law is whether or not it is asking about legal advice. The title of your Meta question specifically mentions "a second opinion". If that is the spirit of your question, then I would not only recommend not asking it on Law, but not asking it anywhere on Stack Exchange, because it reeks of opinions. Asking for interpretations, as you mention in your first sentence, is also off-topic.

However, the text of your question seems to indicate that you are simply confused by the meaning of parts of the license agreement. If that is the case, then this would appear to not be legal advice, and an okay question for Law.

  • I'll post my question on Law and try to formulate it as you've said. Thank you very much! – Mårten Wikström Sep 7 '15 at 22:38

This can be asked in Open Source and/or Law I think. As long you're not asking for opinions but facts you should be fine. Anyways, you can ask these types of questions in Open Source.SE:

  • real problems or questions that you’ve encountered
  • the history and philosophies of the Free Software Foundation, Open Source Initiative and Creative Commons
  • understanding, applying, and complying with Free & Open licenses
  • issues related to project management, such as collaboration, monetization, marketing, distribution, hosting, and community communication

And you can ask these type of questions in Law.SE:

  • Statutes or court decisions
  • Legal terms and language, doctrines and theory
  • Legal process and procedure
  • Historical legal applications
  • Dealing with legal professionals

You seem to be having questions about the legal agreement of the site, which would put you in law. But you seem to have questions about the second bullet in Open Source as well. You seem to might spark a debate/war of opinions so try asking in Open Source first then ask in Law if unsuccessful.

  • 1
    I don't think the agreement is Open Source, though. It's certainly not a derivative of a Creative Commons, GPL, MIT or other common open source license. It's a custom one, and not open source. – HDE 226868 Sep 7 '15 at 22:37
  • Then law it is then – Anthony Pham Sep 7 '15 at 22:39

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .