OSNews

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.

How would there not be? Can you think of *anything* where purchasing a product doesn't give you the right to use it? If I buy a sandwich, I have the right to eat it. If I buy a book, I have the right to read it. If I buy a CD, I have the right to listen to it.

If I buy a piece of software - I don't automatically have the right to run it? That implies a specific exemption somewhere in the law for software...

Yes, you do automatically get such a right. Look at the section of the US Copyright law quoted in the article and by one other poster here. It says:

it is not an infringement [of copyright] for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner

Copyright law generally is implemented to accord with an international convention, so this is probably true in most jurisdictions.

I understand open source quite well thank you very much. You, however, are purposefully avoiding the point of what I wrote.

Whether the license grants or removes rights is completely immaterial, the concept is respecting the license. If you feel that you have a right to infringe on Apple license, regardless of the reason, then you should have no qualms about someone else infringing on the GPL, regardless of the reason.

I can assure you that Linksys feels that their inability to distribute a modified Linux without releasing the source is just as detrimental to them as your inability to install OS X on whatever machines you want to.

Seriously, the fact that you can rationalize a difference between the two says much more about your understanding of open source and respecting software developers than it does mine.

Finally, you're going to have to do a lot more than simply state that Apple's EULA in some way harms consumers. I'm afraid that your opinion carries no weight with me or many other people on this planet. Such comments sound more like hyperbole attempting to appeal to fear than a rational, coherent argument.

Actually, if the Apple license falls under copyright misuse, then Apple is prevented from enforcing it until they take care of the misuse.

Limited monopolies, enforced through the abuse of copyright, can do nothing but harm the market. Competition is known to improve the market, not allowing it hurts the market.
You tell me, how does Apple EULA _help_ consumers? By limiting their choice of hardware to one?