Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 25th Oct 2009 12:51 UTC
Editorial A couple of years ago, a professor at my university had a very interesting thought exchange with the class I was in. We were a small group, and I knew most of them, they were my friends. Anyway, we had a talk about language purism - not an unimportant subject if you study English in The Netherlands.
Thread beginning with comment 391047
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
DrillSgt
Member since:
2005-12-02

"Why does everyone keep making the mistake of thinking they own their copy of Mac OSX? When you buy the "retail" copy, you are purchasing a License to use it


Various judges disagree with you on that one, most recently Vernor vs. Autodesk. Whose word to take...
"

Vernor vs. Autodesk confirms that you do indeed own the copy of the software. Which means you can shred it, eat it, burn it, whatever you want to that specific copy. The same case also confirms that *use* of the software is governed by the license, which means you must adhere to the terms of the license when you actually install and use it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Vernor vs. Autodesk confirms that you do indeed own the copy of the software. Which means you can shred it, eat it, burn it, whatever you want to that specific copy. The same case also confirms that *use* of the software is governed by the license, which means you must adhere to the terms of the license when you actually install and use it.

Yes, this is true, but it is also true that Blizzard in the WoW case directly contradicts Vernor on this point. Not that it matters outside the US. As to which will eventually become binding precedent in the US, we will have to wait and see.

I'm not sure Thom is right (as I was also not right earlier) to think that the fact that WoW is a service is a decisive factor. The sections of the Blizzard judgment that refer to purchase versus license do not make any reference to the service. The sections which in effect conclude that when you use a product in violation of EULA, such use, because you no longer have permission to copy to memory, are copyright infringing, also do not make reference to the fact that WoW is a service.

I agree with Thom that the case of Psystar has no bearing on the GPL, and PJ has never made any coherent argument that it does.

Reply Parent Score: 2

zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20

Only those license terms which are legally valid and binding, of course.

Many EULAs and even paper contracts contain clauses that lawyers can easily invalidate and are only in there to scare people into thinking they have fewer rights than they really do.

Reply Parent Score: 2