|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 08:27 AM EDT |
The GPL is very explicit in saying that anyone can use GPL
software without agreeing to any terms at all. The GPL says
what you must do if you want to distribute modified copies.
The general stance of the FSF is that it is absurd to claim
that the mere *use* (as opposed to copying, modification, or
redistribution) of software requires a license, any more
than one would be required to have a license to read a
discarded copy of a newspaper found on a train.
However, commercial software publishers have invariably
danced around this by stating that their customers do not
own even the copy of the software on their computers (not
talking about ownership of copyright, just owning that
particular copy), they just purchased the right to use the
software company's copy. This sort of bob-and-weave allows
the vendor to deprive the customer of the rights and
protections that consumers have historically been
guaranteed. You don't see a book, or a hammer, with a
license attached saying "cannot be used commercially", and
courts would laugh at such a thing (I would hope). Also,
the owner of a copy of a program has an explicitly granted
legal right to make backup copies, but one who just has a
license to use the software has no such legal guarantee.
Rest assured that this is not a coincidence.
The current legal landscape is one of absurdity - MS says
"you own the Surface tablet you just purchased, but there is
a pattern of magnetic signals inside that you do not own,
and thus we can tell you what you can and cannot do with
your table" (again, only talking about ownership of that
particular copy, not copyright ownership).
I'm waiting for a sufficiently brave judge to step in and
say "you guys are on crack. If Ms. Smith owns the tablet,
she owns all the magnets and electrons inside, and all the
first-sale and other consumer protections apply to her. Ms.
Smith, you can go ahead and use your Surface RT to run your
church's bake sale".
(I realize that there are two other arguments that the
software makers could trot out - "all software use involves
copying", and "EULA is a legal contract", but these also
have serious holes).
The whole commercial software industry is full of sneaky
legal maneuvering, and I hope our society will wake up and
stop tolerating it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
