Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 12th Oct 2009 18:25 UTC
Legal Now that all the nastiness of the discovery phase is behind us in the Apple vs. Psystar case, both parties are trying to get the case settled before it goes to court, much like the recent Vernor vs. Autodesk case. Both Apple and Psystar have filed motions asking for a summary judgement.
Thread beginning with comment 388951
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: OSNews legal analysis
by cycoj on Tue 13th Oct 2009 00:58 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: OSNews legal analysis"
cycoj
Member since:
2007-11-04

It's funny that you call out on Thom for not backing up his claims, while not giving any evidence yourself. Now with respect to your arguments.

Because EULAs and the GPL look like contracts they are the same? What sort of argument is that? So all contracts are the same?? Furthermore "free software licenses are not contracts" [see wikipedia on software licenses and the references therein].

The same article also states that EULA cases are usually disputed however it does not provide a citation. However in a lot of european countries EULAs are considered not valid due to the nature of the contract (it only takes rights away from you, while not giving you any rights (you already have the right to use the software when you buy it)). [you could read the german wikipedia article on this if you need citations]. So at least in a lot of countries Thom's argument was correct.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[10]: OSNews legal analysis
by Piot on Tue 13th Oct 2009 01:16 in reply to "RE[9]: OSNews legal analysis"
Piot Member since:
2009-09-17

Why do you guys always come up with the "I can do anything I want in Europe" argument.

JUST ONE EXAMPLE

In The Netherlands, an EULA constitutes as a contract, and as such, you need to treat an EULA according to Contract Law

"the EULA I agree with by clicking "I agree" is actually a valid contract according to Dutch Contract Law

Effectively, if PsyStar was a Dutch company, Apple would have legs to stand on to legally force them to stop distributing Mac OS X Leopard pre-installed."

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[10]: OSNews legal analysis
by rhavyn on Tue 13th Oct 2009 01:22 in reply to "RE[9]: OSNews legal analysis"
rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

It's funny that you call out on Thom for not backing up his claims, while not giving any evidence yourself. Now with respect to your arguments.


I've given evidence many times. Go ahead and look at my other posts. I quote extensively from statute and legal opinions. There is generally no point in providing citations for something this basic though. But since you asked...

Because EULAs and the GPL look like contracts they are the same? What sort of argument is that? So all contracts are the same?? Furthermore "free software licenses are not contracts" [see wikipedia on software licenses and the references therein].


From the very first line of the Wikipedia article for "software license" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license)

A software license (or software licence in commonwealth usage) is a legal instrument (by way of contract law) governing the usage or redistribution of software.


Or, the very first line of the Wikipedia article for EULA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eula)

A software license agreement is a contract between a producer and a purchaser of computer software that is included with software.


Now, I never said all contracts are the same. And contracts almost always enter into some other areas of law and thus must be read with those laws in mind. However, both EULAs and the GPL involve copyright law and the redistribution of software. They are both contracts, specifically contracts of adhesion. Furthermore (from West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2.) (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Adhesion+Contract)

There is nothing unenforceable or even wrong about adhesion contracts.


So, under what legal doctrine would you like to claim that EULAs and the GPL don't use the same legal instruments to be effective?

The same article also states that EULA cases are usually disputed however it does not provide a citation. However in a lot of european countries EULAs are considered not valid due to the nature of the contract (it only takes rights away from you, while not giving you any rights (you already have the right to use the software when you buy it)). [you could read the german wikipedia article on this if you need citations]. So at least in a lot of countries Thom's argument was correct.


Considering that the lawsuit in question takes place in the United States, there is no way to construe Thom's argument as correct. Looking at European law is equally a fruitless exercise.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[11]: OSNews legal analysis
by cycoj on Tue 13th Oct 2009 07:36 in reply to "RE[10]: OSNews legal analysis"
cycoj Member since:
2007-11-04

+1 for selective quoting.
You conveniently leave out the fact that the wikipedia article explicitly states that FOSS licences are not contracts. Same as PJ from Groklaw and many other lawyers as well as the FSF (http://lwn.net/Articles/61292/). But you just left that out because it didn't fit into your argument. Doesn't make you very credible.

Same when you quote the passage which includes the statement that the issue of EULAs has resulted in different rulings, e.g. Softman v. Adobe (2001) and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. (2000) in favour of first sale and [Davidson & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004)] in favour of EULAs.
So your statement that EULAs enforcability is undisputed is false.

Reply Parent Score: 1