To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
References? Licenses are transferable, but you still are bound by the conditions of the license.
Different to a free software license how? Have you looked at the GPL? You are not arguing on principle: the right for a company to license as they want.
The EULA does not appear magically only after the software is bought. Neither does the GPL. Even then if you have second thoughts you can refund your money.
References
There's atleast this one: http://www.osnews.com/story/22270/Judge_Sides_with_Vernor_Slams_Aut...
Licenses are transferable, but you still are bound by the conditions of the license.
In this case (and the Finnish one) the license forbids selling the software forth.
Different to a free software license how? Have you looked at the GPL? You are not arguing on principle: the right for a company to license as they want.
As I already tried to explain, GPL does not tell you how you can use the work you've obtained. It only limits how you can distribute it forward. And as said, distribution of copyrighted works does fall under the copyright law.
But EULA tries to limit the ways you can _use_ the work, not how you can distribute it. And copyright law does not govern such.
That is the difference and it is a big difference.
Okay, since you made the claim: post a link to the official page page on Apple's website where I can view the OS X EULA prior to purchase.
Waiting...
The difference is the GPL doesn't *restrict use*, it grants a copyright exception provided you meet its conditions.
If I sell you a CD with a piece of GPL software you can do what you like with it without being in any way affected by the GPL, *unless* you're making copies, at which point the GPL comes into affect.
The key thing here is that the GPL grants you an *additional* right you don't have by default (the right to make copies, provided you meet the GPL conditions). An EULA restricts your existing rights.
So when receiving a piece of GPL software you are not bound by the GPL at all. You are however bound by copyright law as you would be with any other piece of software. The GPL offers you a conditional exemption to that copyright law, *if you decide you want to take up that exemption*. Otherwise you can ignore the GPL completely and carry on under normal copyright law.







Member since:
2006-02-15
Software is a service: acquiring a CD of software is not the same as acquiring usage rights to that software.
Actually, software is a product. It was just recently reported here that there's a case in the US where a person was selling forward the software he had bought and court said it was indeed legal as the software was a product, not a service.
It's the same here in Finland too; several years ago already a similar case went to the court and the judge clearly ruled that software sold as a product is a product, not a service. If they wanted it to be a service they'd have to market and sell it as a service.
This is a double-edged sword: if apple cannot enforce their right to license how they want, should open source licensing be also be unenforceable.
Apples and oranges. You apparently don't understand the difference so I'll explain: open-source licenses are all based on the copyright law. They grant you permission to use and distribute copyright work; a permission you would not have without the license.
Commercial EULAs however try to imply that copyright law also allows you to dictate how, where and when your work can be used. The problem is that that is not part of the copyright law. Copyright law only handles about making copies of and distribution of copyright work, not how one can use it after one has legally obtained it.