[Pannoniae]

The most hilarious part:

"Partner represents and warrants that it shall not introduce into WhatsApp’s Systems or Infrastructure, the Sublicensed Encryption Software, or otherwise make accessible to WhatsApp any viruses or any software licensed under the General Public Licence or any similar licence (e.g. GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL), GNU General Public License (GPL), GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL)) containing a "copyleft" requirement during performance of the Services"

[diego_sandoval]

Viruses licensed under the MIT or BSD licenses are OK, though.

[organsnyder]

The lack of punctuation makes that a totally viable interpretation.

[NekkoDroid]

Would be a shame if someone where to use the EUPL-1.2 just to fuck with them :)

[arp242]

That entire section 6 is weird; because 6.1 talks about gaining access to WhatsApp's "systems, networks, databases, computers, or other information systems owned", and then 6.2 is the bit you quoted that talks about copyleft.

But ... it's not like WhatsApp is hiring me as a sysadmin for their servers, are they? Why would they give me access to their systems? They won't. This seems copy/paste legalese.

[EMIRELADERO]

> But ... it's not like WhatsApp is hiring me as a sysadmin for their servers, are they? Why would they give me access to their systems? They won't. This seems copy/paste legalese.

"Access" in this case just means "ability to interact with". It doesn't imply root/admin abilities.

[majke]

Can a binary even be gpl?

[looofooo0]

A binary can be under gpl sure. Type gcc in bash for example

[quadhome]

“Any viruses” huh? The semantic gap between engineering and legal is real.