On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 10:12:43AM -0700, Jon wrote: > > I'm truly curious. There is a perception that since the GNU GPL isn't > restrictive that it is therefore not a EULA. I don't feel that > 'restrictvieness' is a required characteristic of a EULA and therefore > don't feel that argument has merit.
I would agree that it doesn't matter what the license said, what is at question is whether you have to agree to the licence prior to using the software. If a license 'says you must agree to this license' but does not impose any conditions then it would/could still be a EULA. This is really comming down to semantics on whether the term 'EULA' is applicable, and the negative conatations of this phrase if it is. The 'End User' phrase would infer that this is specifically talking about the user who will use (rather than distribute) the application. I have the view that as the GPL does not require a 'user' to agree to the license, it is not a 'EULA'. [Although some Windows ports of GPL applications do force you to agree to the GPL as you are installing - but that may just be the 'normal' expectation of Windows users/developers and may be technically erronious] [I started typing this email a while ago, Nick has already mentioned this] GPL v2 Section 0 says 'Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope'. So to a mere 'User' the GPL would not be applicable, and the fact that a user did/didn't agree with it is irrelevant. This does raise the question what is the legal status of a program which does not require a license associated with a particular activity - such as simply 'using' in this example. The popular concept of 'unlicensed' software is to presume 'illegal' activity, however this does not follow through to other aspects of licensing - ie. it is not 'illegal' to have an unlicensed cat for example (well not in the CNP anyhow ;-). Since the only people who can specify a license are the copyright owners, is it up to them to dictate which license (if any) is required. I believe that a breach of license actually turns into a copyright violation for the purpose of procescution. > > However, that's where my thoughts get fuzzy. If I intend to develop and > publish, or distribute GNU GPL'd software, then the GPL does restrict me > in the conditions under which I can do that. Given than developers and > distributors may or may not be classified as "end users", does that make > the GPL a EULA? Again, as I believe that as the 'user' does not need to agree to the terms, then the GPL is not a 'EULA'. [Most software would be distributed to 'end users', who would not normally modify or develop. They may however be distributors, which would require agreement to the terms of the GPL. I guess this is a little tricky...] If you are 'copying, distributing or modifing' then the GPL does apply - in which case you must agree to it, even it if it says you may ... blah blah blah In the case that you are developing for in-house use then you still need to agree to the GPL license, which specifically gives you permission to do these modifications in a closed enviroment. > > Very curious on the thoughts on this matter. They say curiousity killed the cat... Another glitch is that if you don't have to agree to the GPL as an 'end user', there is no revoking of warranty rights - does this mean that one can asume a warranty from an unlicensed application? Simon [who is opinionated, but is not a lawyer] _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [email protected] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
