Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 10th Sep 2010 23:38 UTC
Legal EULAs, and whatever nonsense they may contain, are legally binding in the US. Have a great weekend!
Thread beginning with comment 440522
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
TheGZeus
Member since:
2010-05-19

Wow, you... don't understand these licenses.

An EULA covers both use _and_ distribution.
The majority of FLOSS licenses explicitly waive all restrictions on use, and explicitly state that it's not guaranteed to be good for any purpose, but can be used for any purpose.
They grant the right to use it however you wish.
They grant the right to distribute however you wish, sometimes requiring you to also distribute source code.

I'm not lying, and I'm not wrong. Have you ever read these licenses? If not, you're no better than the people who don't read Proprietary EULA, then get angry when they are required to comply.

End User License Agreement.
Redistribution as part of an operating system is a use.
The end user is whoever is using it.
The GNU General Public LICENSE.
Which you must AGREE TO to USE(and/or copy) it.

Reply Parent Score: 0

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Have you ever read these licenses?


Uh, kiddo, I've read and studied them more often than you can imagine.

The GNU General Public LICENSE.
Which you must AGREE TO to USE(and/or copy) it.


Uh, wrong. As wrong as wrong can ever be. The GPL covers ONLY distribution, and as such, a user NEVER has to agree with the GPL. Where do you get this nonsense?

Just read this little 101, okay kiddo? I'm SO sick of people like you spreading these kinds of lies. These are such basic things that have been explained SO MANY TIMES it is just BAFFLING to see people repeat them STILL.

http://www.osnews.com/story/22233/The_Difference_Between_EULAs_and_...

Reply Parent Score: 1

TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Was anything in the way you decided to address me neccessary?

Why did you feel the need to be rude?

How is the creation and distribution of a derivative work not a 'use' of the software?

There's this stigma attached do the term EULA, but it's a general term that absolutely encompasses free software licenses.

If you make proprietary licenses invalid, you have to do the same for Free licenses.
Copyright is the only law that covers both sides of the software fence.
The copyright owners can grant/deny anything in regards to their work.
Them's the facts.

Installation is copying, data is not moved, it is copied.
Once the copy is made, if they require destruction of the original, that's fucked up, but it's within their rights, that's the fucked up part of this case.

Their EULA is too far-reaching. It extends past what is reasonable. Same with many proprietary licenses.

That doesn't change the fact that 'user' is a very broad term, and I see no difference between a 'user' of software and a 'programmer' of software.

You were very rude to me because you felt the need to demonise an accurate term.
"AARGH! EULA HAS A NEGATIVE CONNOTATION TO ME! I MUST SCREAM AT PEOPLE TO PROVE THAT I AM NOT AN END USER WHEN I USE CODE AND ALLOW OTHERS TO USE THE RESULT!!"
Is not a very good way to get your point across.

Neither is saying that copyright licenses are different from EULA. EULA only cover copyrighted work, are only enforceable if the conveyor of the license owns the copyright, or has been explicitly been given the right to distribute licenses to third parties and enforce said licenses by the owner of said copyrighted work.

This is basic logic, and there's no need for the vitriol you're spewing at me.
Distribution can be a use.

Just because EULA is normally associated with proprietary licenses does not make creating a derivative work or redistribution something other than a possible use of a copyrighted work.

The warranty clause is the only thing that mentions use in the GPL and most other free software licenses, but that's explicitly giving you the right to use it, but leaving you with no right to sue if you do and dislike the results.

That still covers use, the user, and the copyright holder.


Learn to control your emotions a bit more, and be a bit more chill, like the happy fun-time rainbow unicorn in your avatar.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Lamego Member since:
2006-01-12

Some GPL software distributors do require the user to accept the GPL license during install.
How do you USE software without obtaining it from DISTRIBUTION ?

Anyway, the described court case is about distribution, not use. From an enforcement perspective it is aligned with the distribution conditions for GPL, which you must comply with.

And please stop being disrespectful, OSNews deserves better.

Reply Parent Score: 1