Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

U.S. Court Ruling Nixes EULA Sales Restrictions

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the interesting-twist dept.

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.

10 of 269 comments (clear)

  1. This is good news. by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  2. Re:About time! by saridder · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
  3. impact on upgrades? by Lepruhkawn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  4. I wonder what this means for preinstalled software by Gaijin42 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  5. Impact on Windows EULA by 90XDoubleSide · · Score: 3, Interesting
    ...ruled that consumers can resell bundled software, no matter what the EULA, or End User License Agreement, stipulates.

    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
  6. It's gonna be overturned by multimed · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I read the Reg article earlier and was very happy. It just makes sense, the purchase of software is a sales transaction and not a license agreement--regardless of what the EULA says. Some one said that this may open the doors for companies to sell software as a service only good for a set amount of time--while this is scary, it may be an improvement too--it will place a much higher burdon on the companies to make better software that doesn't suck--if they're selling it as a service, then if it doesn't work I get a refund--like if my cable service goes out.

    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.
  7. Re:I wonder what this means for preinstalled softw by Quizme2000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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....
  8. Uh, obviously not. by oGMo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

  9. Re:GPL? by Galvatron · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Basically, if you don't agree to the license, you're bound by standard first sale doctrine. Hence, you can resell the components (which might allow you to unbundle the source from the executable, if they were on different cds), make backups, anything you could legally do with, say, music cds.


    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
  10. Sure, if you're a bastard... by roystgnr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.