OSNews

All rights are reserved under the Berne convention, with exceptions for fair use etc. No such 'unlimited permission' is ever granted by default, which is why it is explicitly mentioned. "

No, the right to use the software is already implied by the fact that it was distributed/made available to you in the first place. So that term does nothing but explicitly state a right that was already implicitly granted.



So the licenses emphasize different things. I don't dispute this. "

Not only is the emphasis difference, the individual types of terms are completely different too. The only similarity is that they're both licenses, which is like equating a human being with a trout because they're both chordates.

Aside from that, there's the fact that the GPL grants rights that would not normally be present under copyright, but which the copyright holder has a legally well-established right to grant. On the other hand, the post-sales restrictions in Apple's EULA attempt to remove rights that end users would normally have under copyright law, and those restrictions go far above and beyond the protections afforded to Apple as the copyright holder.



No, it has nothing to do with whether or not software licenses are valid. The relevant question is whether or not a copyright holder has the rights to use an EULA to impose post-sales arbitrary, post sales restrictions.



Except for the small fact that basic principle is precisely where the license differ from each other.