To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The reason people try to conflate them seems to be that they would like to make the argument, presumably inspired by Cupertino marketing, that if Apple loses it will in some way negatively affect the GPL. In fact, it will not, and for the reasons given in the above post, one (GPL) is a matter of statutory law, copyright law.
The other (EULA) is a civil contract you have entered into with a supplier, whose terms may or may not be enforceable in your jurisdiction.
If Apple wins or loses, it will be on the EULA issue, and it will have no effect whatever on the GPL. So there is no reason to support Apple's case on acount of any worries about the GPL.
It is a bit like if I fail to pay my mortgage and get sued, if I win or lose, this will not affect the enforceability of the law on speed limits. Yes, the two things are that unrelated!




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".