Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Court Ruling Nixes EULA Sales Restrictions
Raziel writes: "The Register is reporting in this article that a district court has ruled in favour of "software users that wish to extricate themselves from restrictive software licenses". The case in question is Adobe vs Softman, and in its ruling, the District of California seems to vacate Adobe's claims of "irrepairable damage" caused by the resale of Adobe products without forcing the use of Adobe's registration process. The full ruling is available in PDF format here. Any chance of a precedent here?" You can also read the Don Marti piece piece that sparked this discussion.
Does this mean that software is getting more tangible as in assets? Assets that are saleable?
By the way, I thought it funny that information on this decision against Adobe was available in PDF Format... heh.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
I agree. Reminds me of the german ruling a few months ago that someone brouht up stating that manufacturers cannnot control the sales channels.
--- RFC 1149 Compliant.
Does this decision have any impact on upgrading software and getting price breaks?
For example, I upgrade from Crapsoft 3.1 by buying Crapsoft 4.0 and get a rebate on Crapsoft 4.0 because I have a 3.1 UPC symbol.
So can I sell Crapsoft 3.1 to someone because I am no longer using it and I made two purchases and am only using one?
Jesus saves....And takes 1/2 damage.
The article and ruling are worded such that the ruling only applies to unused software. IE you can't decide a week after using XP that you don't like it and sell it (If the EULA doesn't permit that) But if you never installed it you are fine.
What if the software is installed by default. Software that has a clickthrough or registration screen built in on first use will probably still be covered, but other stuff may not be.
So would this ruling also protect those people that want to sell their bundled copies of Windows or donate them to charity? If so, this could be an even more significant ruling than it appears, as MS's business strategy relies on those copies being worthless to get people to buy more licenses or buy newer versions than they want.
"Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
That said, it doesn't matter anyway, because with the deep pockets on the other side, they'll appeal until the get to a judge that is more "open" to their side.
Vote Quimby.
Take Dell and Compaq, the kings of bundled software crap, either one of two things will happen: all software will be installed with no CD for backup or it will become like the distros of the OS, where the installer can only be used on "your computer".
I got in trouble for donating 500 licences of MS Office 98, and MS windows that had been bundled with our machines when we changed to all open source. Apparently the IRS does not consider donation of microsoft software as a charitable contributuion of any value.
In the non-bundled reatil world, hasn't this been happening a EB and Software etc. for ages? I would beat a game, trade it for a little cash or a credit at the store. I guess when you do this online there is no way to know weather the software is on the original media or not.
"Get them before they get....
IANAL, but this obviously doesn't have anything to do with copyright law. You can't resell copies of this software or otherwise infringe on their copyrights any more than you ever could. The GPL gives you rights to copy above and beyond copyright law, and when used it is the only source of those additional rights, so you follow the rules or don't play.
This ruling would just mean that you could go out and resell that RedHat or Debian CD you bought. And, gee, guess what... you already could. ;-)
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Here's a scary thought...
:)
What if all these court rulings continue to frustrate MS and Co.'s attempts at stopping piracy, etc to the point where they simply stop selling software retail, AND not include install CDs with new computers. Follow me...
This would at first seem odd - why would they do this? Well here's the theory:
1) mfr stops selling install CDs and retail
2) Joe buys PC with preinstalled software
3) Joe screws up preinstalled software
4) Joe has no installation CD
5) Joe takes PC back to service center
6) $$ for svc center to reinstall
7) Svc ctr pays $$ to mfgr/publisher for new license
or
1) Joe has Crapware 2
2) Joe wants Crapware 3
3) Joe takes PC to svc cter, and has svc ctr install Crapware 3
4) Svc Ctr pays $$ to mfgr of Crapware 3
In effect, the licensing issue is now handled completely at the "service center", and is no longer in the hands of the end user.
In a day and age that everyone uses M$ products this would literally *suck*...but people *would* do it. They do it now already! (how many average folks out there know how to install Windows? Why does Gateway have end user support?) From the manufacturer's point of view, it would prevent almost all forms of piracy, and there is nothing illegal about it at all. I have knowledge that this scheme is actually being reviewed and discussed by some major players out there.
(Granted people could still swap and copy harddrives, but thats a real pain if you only want a copy of, say, Adobe Illustrator)
Smart folks would use Linux anyway
Aside from unbundling source code (which again, would probably only be legal if they were on different cds), the GPL does not restrict anything that first sale allows. In contrast, the GPL allows many things that first sale does not, for example unlimited redistribution, unlimited copying, redistribution of modified versions (so long as source code is made available), and so forth.
So, Microsoft could, for example, buy a Red Hat boxed set, and then resell it. They might be able to buy it, and sell the binary cds by themselves. They could not, however, buy a boxed set, hack the source, and incorporate elements into Windows XP II, or Windows YP , or whatever they plan to call the next one, without running afoul of copyright law.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
And here's how:
Person A downloads the GPLed software, makes whatever changes he wants to. He sells this software to Person B, along with the full source code; thus he is complying with the GPL. He doesn't have to give the source code to anyone but person B, because he's not distributing binaries to anyone but person B.
Person B then resells each copy of the software, without source code. He is not complying with the GPL, but that's okay, because he didn't agree to it. He is just exercising first sale rights that copyright law gives him.
The end result? Both people make money, both are obeying the law... but the spirit of the GPL gets raped.
I am (obviously) not a lawyer, but it seems like a legitimate scam to me.
Selling software, is like giving away tape copies of your latest CD. It only hurts, if they catch you. If you sell it on ebay, with millions of people seeing it, including the companies, then your risking it. Don't want to get into trouble? Put out a classified ad in the newspaper.
Personally I never worried about it. I sold several pieces of my software after I upgraded. To me, when I buy something, it's a *purchase* it's *goods*. I don't rent software, I buy it. I only 'agree' to those EULA to install the program. Once it's in my hands, then I can do as *I* wish, especailly if it helps me. Doesn't mean that I immediately give out free copies to every Tom, Dick or Harry, but I still use it, and consider it goods.
If they want me to stop selling my old software, then give out free copies. The software companies, (or RIAA, MPAA, etc.) can sit on a diskette and spin for all I care.
When you make your customers crimminals, then they'll act as such.
Shadowwalker Delaforge
shadwalk at operamail-REMOVEFORSPAM-.com