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 440526
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

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


The meanings of the words as used within the GPL license text is actually defined in the GPL text.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html

Section 0 "Definitions".
To “propagate” a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well.

To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.


My bold.

The acts you describe, to whit "the creation and distribution of a derivative work", would come within the meaning of the term "propagate" (rather than merely "use") as defined for the purposes of the GPL.

Edited 2010-09-12 06:54 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

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

Lemur already answered this but in his own typical way of throwing a bunch of links and not being too coherent. So, I am answering in a way that hopefully even a layman would understand.

'Use' of GPLed software literally means using it in a personal environment, ie. you do something with it. Using GPLed code in f.ex. a software project you are coding is literally using it, after all you do something with it. It is a derivate work then but as you are not distributing it you are free to do as you may with it.

It's when you wish to distribute the application you wrote that the copyright law steps in: you have code in your application that is copyrighted to another party and you have to agree to their terms before you can distribute their copyrighted work. This is not 'use' of the code, however, this is literally distribution, and copyright law is all about distribution of copyrighted works.

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.


Incorrect. Copyright law governs the distribution of copyrighted works, not use. In most EULAs in proprietary software there are lots of clauses how you can use the software and how you can't, but such clauses do not belong under the copyright law and are invalid in most countries. Of course, the parts where EULA says you are not allowed to copy the software to others etc do fall under copyright law and those parts are valid.

Then again, selling a copyrighted work as a whole, not parts of it or copies of it, belong under sales law; it's not distribution, it's the copyrighted work changing owner from one to another with the aforementioned party losing their ownership. EULAs cannot dictate how sales laws applies to them and thus all such clauses are again invalid. And before you jump to conclusions: no, it's sales about the particular work, not the copyright of it.

(I'm starting to think that it'd be easier to just write a complete article explaining these things than just repeating the same things in comments section every time someone who doesn't understand what he's talking about makes erroneous claims..)

Reply Parent Score: 3

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

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

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 ?


I can only assume those distributors themselves have just copied that practice from proprietary solutions without thinking. GPL is a copyright license, not an EULA per se, and is invalid when only using the software or code. GPL (and copyright law itself) applies only when distributing such yourself.

I give you that that it's a bad practice to ask users to agree or disagree with GPL before they can install the software in question; you are not required to agree with GPL to use GPLed software and thus the dialog is unneeded.

Reply Parent Score: 3