OSNews

Apples and oranges, as it were. EULA's generally attempt to control how software is used, wheras OSS licenses generally attempt to control how software is distributed only and assert no control over how an individual uses it.

OSS licenses rely on the power of existing copyright law, which already deals with distribution, and at the very least the GPL, for one, has been found legally valid within the EU.

The problem with EULA's is two-fold: In many cases they are trying to enforce restrictions against privileges users may already have by law within their jurisdiction (ie. the ability to reverse-engineer, fair-use provisions for copying media, etc.) which would generally invalidate those provisions, and the second problem is the question of enforcing click-through or break-the-seal as a valid form of contractual agreement.

So EULA's are not necessarily illegal per se, but often the provisions they try to enforce or the manner in which users are forced to accept the terms, are.

You're pretty much dead on. What many people keep missing is that distribution licenses like the GPL don't really need to be "tested in court", in contrast to user licenses.

If you distribute GPL software without complying to its terms, the authors simply sues you for copyright violation. The GPL doesn't even come into play. Unless you as the violator invoke it, in which case you're left to argue that somehow the GPL gives you distribution rights even if you don't agree to its terms.

What happens to an EULA once software becomes obsolete, for example, Windows 98. Is the EULA just rescinded and people can just do whatever they like with the software?

They are not only legal, but nowadays in Europe they are virtually mandatory.

Why should we mod you down? I think it is a good question.

I guess I can answer that to some degree.
The GPL and other open source "licenses" can be interpreted in terms of copyright. You have the copyright of a product and allow others to reproduce it under certain rules. That is perfectly legal in terms of copyright. You are not restricted in using the software, though.

EULAs generally restrict you in using the software you bought. They try to be some kind of contract. And such kinds of "contracts" are void here.

Yet you don't need contracts to have your copyright. You only need to create/publish (depending on national law) something.

Please correct me if I was wrong.

You'd be surprised how many buttons are pushed with my question. Many people, especially on forums such as OSNews and Slashdot, like to spout things with no support, and mod people down who ask for proof.



Can you point me to a reading that states this? Many people make such claims, but fail to support them, so I would like some proof. Online legislation postings would be great. Too bad Google doesn't have "concept search".

You are correct.

An EULA and a copyright license are two very different things. The first one governs how a work may be used, the latter governs how it may be copied. Copyright licenses have a very established legal foundation. EULAs have no such thing.

Lots of correct answers have already been made and I don't want to repeat them. I want just add a video of a speech held by law professor Eben Moglen held in Harvard. It's very interesting if you are interested in this topic.
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=6345039926759549406

An EULA is not a license, but a License Agreement. The GPL is not a license agreement, but merely a License. There's a catch here. Besides that the GPL does not restrict usage in anyway. It only kicks in when distributing.

The Apple EULA (and the MS ditto) is not illegal as such, but it is none the less mostly void in most european countries, since it restricts rights that cannot be restricted according to law. Not even voluntarily.