Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 25th Sep 2009 14:01 UTC
Legal In France, the GPL has scored yet another major win in court. What makes this infringements case special is that it was filed not by the developers of the infringed-upon code, but by users, demonstrating that they, too, can successfully enforce the GPL. Since I noted on a few threads here on OSNews that a lot of people still fail to grasp the difference between an open source license and an EULA, I figured I'd take this opportunity to explain the difference one more time - using hand-crafted diagrams!
Permalink for comment 386226
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
In a few lines...
by sonic2000gr on Fri 25th Sep 2009 14:16 UTC
sonic2000gr
Member since:
2007-05-20

Let me tell you the difference in just a few lines:

- An EULA is a contract between the user and the company which developed the program. Whether this is applicable or not depends on the region and court case. Most of the times it will not hold up as you have not read it before purchasing the product, nor you have formally agreed to it (a simple keypress does not constitute a signature and there are no witnesses to the fact).

- An open source license on the other hand is not a contract, you do not sign it and you can't even violate it. You simply agree or disagree with it. You can not even be tried for violating it. Since an open source license in reality relieves you from restrictions imposed by the copyright law, if you do not agree with it then these restrictions are not relieved. You will be tried for copyright violation, not licensing violation. Copyright law is mostly similar and enforceable in most countries.

So saying that "GPL held up in court once more" is kind of silly. If you go against GPL, copyright law will get you. So yes, GPL will always "win".

Reply Score: 7