How can a license agreement or terms of use be enforced on a minor? Since a license agreement/terms of use document is a contract between the publisher and the end-user, and since minors are prohibited from entering into legally binding contracts in most U.S. states, how can any sort of terms be legally enforceable? The inability to agree to license terms has all kinds of potential legal ramifications. For example... App store agreements from Apple, Google, Amazon, etc. specify that parents are responsible for the in-app purchases of their children. Can parents be held liable if their child creates their own account without their parents' consent? Can a company seek damages arising from an activity where such an activity is otherwise legal, but prohibited by the license (e.g. video game modding or publishing cheat software)? Can a parent seek damages against a company for using data that was obtained under a waiver of rights by a license agreement (e.g. children uploading content to social media sites that would otherwise be protected by other laws)? Also, would the story change at all if the person in question were of legal age, but legally incompetent?
Business question Since a license agreement/terms of use document is a contract between the publisher and the end-user, and since minors are prohibited from entering into legally binding contracts in most U.S. states, how can any sort of terms be legally enforceable? Legal question May an online publisher enforce its product license agreement/terms of use against a minor ? Answer Yes, an online publisher can enforce its product license agreement/TOU against a minor until such time the minor voids the agreement. Discussion The opinion of the court in C.M.D. v. Facebook 2014 WL 1266291 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2014), Inc. discusses this very legal question and clarified that terms of service of Facebook are enforceable against minors who use websites and further suggests that to disaffirm such terms of service, minors likely must terminate their accounts and stop using the website. The key question in front of the Judge in this case was whether the contract at issue between minors and Facebook - was one of the narrow types of contracts with minors that were void, or if the contract was merely voidable under California Family Code 6701. The court rules in favor of Facebook.
The Stack Exchange "requirement" of a particular type of attribution is unlikely to be enforceable, given the terms of the CC BY-SA license. The actual Creative Commons license, the part that governs the relationship between the parties, is the "legal code" license agreement. The CC BY-SA agreement contains two clauses relevant to the form of attribution. One, as the question points out, is paragraph 4(c), which states that "credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner." This language is much less restrictive than the StackExchange blog post. The other relevant clause is the last clause of the agreement, paragraph 8(e), which is a standard integration clause: This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here. Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication from You. This License may not be modified without the mutual written agreement of the Licensor and You. In other words, any changes to the license, which would include any additional restrictions on the nature of the attribution that may be given (besides the "reasonable manner" specified in the license) are effective only if both parties agree to do so in writing. The specific law applied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction is going to vary, but in general, in the United States, when you have a fully integrated agreement such as this license, a court will not look at anything outside the four corners of the agreement to determine the parties' rights and duties. If a court finds this to be a fully integrated agreement, and refuses to consider "parol evidence," meaning statements outside of the contract, then StackExchange can post a page asking people to attribute content in a particular way, but no, they cannot require it.
It's really your client that should be asking these questions. Writing the app is perfectly legal. So you can enter a contract with that client to write the app and deliver it to them, ready to be put on the Google Play store or the App Store (entering a contract needs to be done carefully, obviously). I'd make 100 million percent sure that the contract states clearly that you have zero responsibility if the app is rejected or removed for non-technical reasons, and that the legality of actually selling and running the app is also not your responsibility. The reason is that I very much suspect that running the app might be illegal, and that the chances of getting it permanently on one of the stores are rather slim. And solving those problems is outside of what a software developer can competently do.
The FTC has myriad regulations (depending on site/content/ etc.) that must be complied with - this is especially true if children will be interacting with others. Ideally, you should have the assistance of an intellectual property attorney or a regulatory specialist if this is something you expect to be wide reaching and/or geared toward children. All of that being said, the following link offers much information regarding compliance with COPPA for small entities. If you plan on doing the compliance work yourself, there is also a liaison, or virtual "help desk" run by the FTC. Depending on what you're doing and your ability to interpret complex regulatory frameworks, you could accomplish this yourself. I'd recommend that you start here, where you'll find links to other regulations that may be applicable and easily found, and then decide if you need a specialist based on the breadth of your work product and what you find that may apply. Or, at a minimum, you may be able to narrow the scope of your question after reviewing this help section, if you find you need help analyzing a certain section. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/complying-coppa-frequently-asked-questions Good luck!
I've answered this in the context of US patent law, but similar principles apply elsewhere in the world. As stated in 35 USC 271, "whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent". Thus, a patent provides the patent owner with the right to exclude others from performing these actions, and the right to sue anyone who does perform these actions (both to stop them from infringing the patent, and to collect monetary damages for their infringement). Creating an infringing product and then licensing it under the GPL (or any other scheme) does not change the fact that it infringes a patent. 35 USC 271 also states that "Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer". This means that, even if the creator of the infringing product does not perform any infringing acts in the US, the act of offering it for free use could be construed as induced infringement of the patent, and they could still be sued for that infringement.
The first thing that has to be done (in court, or via lawyer-to-lawyer communication) is that The Company has to prove that they own the copyright. If they accomplish that, you can defend yourself by providing proof of a license to download and redistribute. From what I can tell, you cannot directly prove that, since the rights-holder did not give you the license. The issue is that a third party cannot impose a license on a work simply by putting it out there with a file that claims to be a license from the artist. So this brings in the Free Music Archive: they presumably have some evidence that the rights holder did indeed grant the alleged license, and may be able to provide proof. Your argument may be credible, in the sense that you had a good-faith belief that the item was so licensed, and the website would provide a basis for concluding that that belief is reasonable. If the work was licensed, then the some rights holder would know that, but not necessarily the current one. Assume the artist made a recording, transferred the rights to Company A, who later sold the rights to Company B who is now coming after you. Artist may have licensed it when it was his, and forgot to tell A. A may have licensed it when they sold the license to B. Artist may have improperly licensed it after he sold the work to A (under the "I wrote it, I have the right to do whatever I want" non-legal theory). A might have improperly licensed the work after selling the right to B (maybe by mistakenly including it in a package deal, i.e. via bookkeeping error, rather than ignorance of the law). Or, they may simply have forgotten. If this is a DMCA takedown notice, the notice-giver could just be abusing the system. But we don't know how you were contacted, so I'll leave DMCA out of this for now.
The EULA is in most jurisdictions a legally binding contract; there is plenty of case law that supports this. You can only be liable under a contract for breaching its terms and only to the extent that the other party suffers harm from that breach. Clearly, if you haven't read the terms then you are greatly increasing the chance that you will inadvertently breach them but not reading them would not, of itself, be a breach and I can't see what harm could flow anyway.
Choice 2 is what the writers of the license have in mind. You own the physical media on which the copy is delivered, such as a DVD or floppy disk (if there was physical media). But you do not own the copy of the software, you merely have purchased a license to use it, which may be revocable under specified circumstances. This is different from the law in the case of a book. Why you buy a book, you own a copy of the book, although you do not own the copyright to the book, and may not make additional copies. The license model was adopted by commercial software distributors for several reasons, but largely to avoid the "first sale doctrine". When you buy a copy of a copyrighted work, you have the right (under US law at least) to lend, rent, sell, or give-away that copy. You do not need the permission of the copyright holder to do any of these. Those in the commercial software business did not want customers to be able to do those things legally. By making the software subject to a license, which is a contract, they could write that license to restrict or prohibit those rights. Sellers also wanted to prohibit reverse engineering of the software, and to restrict use of the software. (For example, to limit the user to installing it on a single computer.) There was at first much dispute over the enforcability of such license agreements. But most US courts now accept them as valid and enforceable, and copyright law has been modified to take account of them. Specifically, 17 USC 109 (2)(b)(1)(A) seems to include a legislative acceptance of this rule.