In many jurisdictions you can't be bound by an agreement if not explicitly agreeing. It most likely boils down to where Gervasio lives. In my country for example I'd be certain Slack would have no standing at all with this. Though even in the US Slack would have to pull an Oracle to win this (which, well, is the risk that they might). Good reminder though in which moral category of enterprises Slack has to be sorted in.
It does not matter, he does not want to fight this.
It might be more than just a EULA. Often to sign up for an API key, you have to go through a bit more explicit agreement to a ToS than there is in a standard funnel. There's also a bit more of an expectation that people will actually read them (and are competent to understand them).
"Terms of Use" are part of the agreement between you and a service provider with regards to the service being provided. That's a civil law contract like any other.
No that's not, and I'm not playing on semantic. Laws are above any terms of use, regardless of what they might say. And not using the product makes you not bound to the terms of use, unlike laws which you have to obey at all times.
I'm beginning to think that when you said by "not signing anything" earlier, you actually meant "not agreeing to anything", is that correct?
> And not using the product makes you not bound to the terms of use, unlike laws which you have to obey at all times.
Of course not. But in this specific case, it is safe to assume that he is using the product, or more specifically: he used Slack to develop BetterSlack.
It does not matter, he does not want to fight this.