Linked by Nescio on Mon 9th Mar 2009 08:05 UTC
Permalink for comment 352319
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-24
As I understand it, the GPL and the EULA rely on the same fundamental premise - in the absence of a licensing agreement of some kind, you have no rights to do anything with the software.
You have no right to use it, no right to modify it, and no right to distribute it. In some jurisdictions you have the right to reverse engineer the software, but since this implies use, this 'right' may have been practically legislated away - see the Blizzard Glider bot lawsuit.
The GPL grants you the right to use, modify and distribute the software subject to its terms, and the EULA grants you limited rights to use the software, subject to its terms.
I think the fundamental issue here is whether there is an implicit 'right to use' attached to software products.
When you buy a software product, do you automatically receive the right to use it as you see fit? I don't think copyright law provides for this at all - especially where 'usage' involves making one or more copies, whether in system RAM or on disk.
Personally, I think the law is broken in this regard, but AFAIK existing case law in various western countries pretty much supports this interpretation.