Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 25th Sep 2009 14:01 UTC
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 386486
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-01-19
Your findings are exactly what I know of the situation in Austria.
Fact is, whenever I tried to buy software at a retail store (Windows XP was my last attempt), I somehow NEVER was pointed towards the EULA. No paper to read (I even asked for it), no internet URL, nothing.
In case of Microsoft, I even searched through Microsoft's product description pages, but did not find a single link to an EULA anywhere. It feeled like Microsoft did NOT want people to read their EULAS before a sale.
My conclusion: As long as software is sold as carelessly as nowadays in retail stores, it is quite easy to bypass ANY obligations an EULA may want to put on me.
So all I currently have to worry about is copyright ("Urheberrecht"). And as the software is sold to me with the implied license to install and run the software (otherwise it would need to be labeled "not for installing and running"), I can use it as I see fit. I am however aware, that I am NOT allowed to copy the software to other computers.
The makers of commercially sold software will need to educate their retailers or at a minimum put an internet URL on the package if they want to make their EULAs enforcable in Austria.