Linked by Nescio on Mon 9th Mar 2009 08:05 UTC
Apple Numerous irrelevant issues and feelings about them are ventilated in comments on the case. However, there are only two important issues. One is what the law is, the other is what we think the law should be.
Permalink for comment 352319
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Uhm...
by IkeKrull on Mon 9th Mar 2009 19:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Uhm..."
IkeKrull
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.

Reply Parent Score: 2