> again, I'm also not a lawyer, but I understand that the supposed
> legal basis of those restrictions is based on the assertion that you,
> as a buyer of the software, do not actually buy the software but
> instead buy a licence to use it in particular ways defined by the
> license you buy.
>
> This is also the basis of open source licenses such as GPL, where it
> is carefully explained that the copyright owner(s) are NOT giving
> away ownership/copyright of the code, but instead give away a license
> for anyone to use it (and in the case of GPL modify and redistribute
> it) if AND ONLY IF they accept and abide by the terms of that license.
One nitpick: the GPL is not a license for use, it is a license for
modification and distribution. They assume that no one needs a license
to use software, and you can use GPL software that is legally
acquired, even while refusing or ignoring the terms of the license,
but distributing copies without following the terms of their license
is a copyright violation ("piracy").
I would say that calling GPL a EULA is a severe disservice to what the
GPL represents. It does not constrain or restrict the actions of any
user who does not distribute or modify the software, two things you
cannot even do without a license or agreement giving you that right.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Mon Nov 24 08:15:02 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Nov 24 2008 - 08:15:03 EET