|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [PLUG] RMS and GNU/sink (was: systrace is cool)
|
On Saturday 15 June 2002 08:55 pm, Bill Jonas wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 07:20:08PM -0400, Jason wrote:
> It would be
> perfectly legal for me to disagree with the GPL and still use
> software licensed under the GPL. The important distinction is that
> the GPL is not a license to *use* (End-User License Agreement), but
> it is a license to *distribute* (Re-Distributer License Agreement?).
> Put another way, here's what the GPL itself says about the issue
> (section 5, in its entirety):
>
> 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have
> not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify
> or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
> prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
> modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
> Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
> all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
> the Program or works based on it.
>
> (This is why it irritates me when I see software installers with
> EULA-style dialog boxes sporting Agree/Disagree buttons with the GPL
> in the box. Although it could be argued that you could actually be
> saying, "Yes, I agree that I do not have to accept this license to
> use the software.")
A winning argument; an astute point. Since you can only agree to what
it says (not to what someone might wish it says)!
>
> A typical software license starts by presuming that you have no
> rights to use the software, since in order to use it, you must first
> copy the program from the CD-ROM to your hard disk, and then copy it
> from your disk into RAM, because it's illegal to make a copy without
> special permission from the copyright holder, isn't it? Wrong --
> it's the manner in which the work is intended to be used. So if the
> copyright holder *knew* and *intended* for this to happen, how can it
> be infringement? Simple answer -- it's not, and those who tell you
> otherwise want you to agree to a EULA. ;-)
Less so here. The copyright holder "intended" for you to agree to the
EULA before you used the software. Actually, the problem with the EULA
concept appears when you compare the CD or other distribution medium to
a printed book or a music CD. The SPA wants congress to believe that
software is an intangible and different from a book. They say, the CD
is like the book, but the code is something else. Bull. The code is
no different than the words in the book. Argueably, there a lot more
layers of intangibles contained in the words of a good novel than any
code I've ever heard about. Yet, the author of the book never tries to
control how you read it. Like you said, you may be prohibited from
copying it and distributing it, or using parts of it in your own work,
but no attempt is made to control your "use" -- reading.
>
> On the other hand, the GPL starts out by presuming that you have full
> right to use the software, and outlines some *additional* freedoms
> you get if you decide to agree to a set of terms. This is why I
> don't believe that the GPL will be found invalid in court and EULAs
> will -- EULAs attempt to place additional restrictions on the user
> above and beyond the scope of copyright law, while the GPL instead
> grants extra rights in exchange for the consideration (compensation,
> if you will, or quid pro quo) of you accepting its terms and adopting
> it as the license for the derivative work.
I'd be stunned if courts invalidated EULAs -- unless they try to go
even further. DRM (digital rights management) may be the downfall of
EULAs. As my boss used to say when we asked him to help us evaluate a
case, "Bulls and bears win. Pigs starve."
>
> Since I'm already rambling, I'll just point out that nothing's
> stopping you from modifying GPL'd software and keeping the changes
> secret. (Common misconception I've seen people have, though not
> necessarily in PLUG.) Use it yourself, use it in your business; the
> GPL only kicks in when you distribute it outside your organization
> (to a friend, to the public, whatever).
>
> Sorry for chasing rabbits here...
--
_______________________________
Art Alexion
Arthur S. Alexion LLC
mailto:arthur@alexion.com
http://www.alexion.com
______________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group - http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug
|
|