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 440575
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

bitwelder Member since:
2010-04-27

Heh, actually if there someone who has to agree/disagree with the GPL that one is not the final user but the developer/seller, when they choose it as their licensing scheme for 100% original code, or when they decide to include GPL-software in their product.

Reply Parent Score: 3