GPL's Strength

Morty writes "So, why hasn't the GPL been successfully challenged yet? In this article, Eben Moglen, General Counsel to the FSF, explains that the GPL is in a stronger legal position than most licenses. Most licenses restrict the user from doing what would otherwise be legal. Because the GPL (and presumably, other free/open software licenses) let the user do things that are otherwise illegal (copy and redistribute software), the GPL is in a stronger position to dictate terms. If the user doesn't accept the terms of the GPL, the default is for copying and redistribution to be forbidden under copyright law. I had never looked at it that way before. . ."

Comments

Re:Strong? Of Course!

[Komarosu]

Yet again, another excellent point. I think this was more the point if they released a new revision of the GPL and the previous version had a slight legal hole, it can be plugged up with the newer version with little or no hassle at all.

Re:Letting users do things that are otherwise ille

[armb]

> Microsoft's EULA lets you use software for which they are the copyright holder. Using it without would be illegal.

Looking at your user history you might just be ignorant rather than trolling with this, so:

That depends on where you are, as discussed in the thread on Playstation imports.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/01 /24/131321 3&mode=thread

In any sane jurisdiction, using software you have already bought does not require additional permission from the copyright holder.
Being English, I'm aware that this may not be the case in the UK.

Saw something similar about EULAs in general

[Anonymous Coward]

Your standard EULA might not be enforcable because there is a 'lack of consideration' in the contract. Basically, you don't read your average EULA until you bought the box it came in, and they're trying to get you to give up something in exchange for nothing (you already purchased the software).

On the other hand, the GPL gives you something (the right to copy, change, etc.) in exchange for something (play by their rules)... so even if it comes in a box you purchased you're still being given something.

Although, if you decide you won't use any of the additional rights the GPL grants, are you still bound by it if you, say, bought a RedHat package full of GNU software? You're paying to use it, right?

The above is a synopsis of an excellent discussion in Brown Eye Journal... be forewarned, it's a painful read.

Re:Saw something similar about EULAs in general

[DrPayOut]

Is there any authority for this at all?

It seems to be established ground that user agreements like EULA is legitimate in contractual terms. The whole idea is that if you don't accept the user agreement, you're supposde to return the software back to the shop (ha).

So, the consideration is clearly the purchase price, and the agreement (ie licence) the quid pro quo for your purchase price.

Sounds like a really dodgy argument to me.

Re:Saw something similar about EULAs in general

[duffbeer703]

If I purchase a copy of MS Office at CompUSA or Best Buy, then decide the license agreement is unacceptable, these stores will not accept your opened MS Office box for return.

Re:Letting users do things that are otherwise ille

[hyphz]

There is an ongoing argument about this.

Basically, whenever you get something with a license, you have the option of not accepting the license. If you don't accept the license, then what rights do you get? Well, the logical answer seems to be that you get all the rights you normally would under copyright law and none others. And in US law these rights are all you need to install and use the software, because copyright law doesn't govern application and US copyright law exempts copies necessary for use. (UK law doesn't, though; the copy made into memory will infringe copyright if it's not licensed (this has been upheld), so EULAs AND the GPL are stronger here.) Statements saying 'if you don't accept the license you must return this software' are PART of the license and thus you can refuse to accept them too. (There is no law giving them the right to say that.)

In the case of software there is normally something that tries to stop you getting at the software without accepting the license (a click license in the installer or an 'if you open the box' rule). Some people have tried getting around this (by, for example, getting a young child to accept the license, which is meaningless as a child cannot enter into a legal agreement), but I'm not sure it's ever been tested in court.

The counter argument would be that it is the license, not the software, that is sold; since the software isn't yours the company can dictate what you can do with it. This is highly contoversial and I think is also still untested. (Amongst other things if tested it could lead to software stores being sued for trade descriptions for claiming that they are selling software. "Software Warehouse" would have to become "License Warehouse" etc...)

Re:Anti-Slashdot effect

[hyphz]

> Copyright law doesn't prohibit decompilation

Yes it does; the decompiled source is a derivative work.

> The [GPL] does not require anyone to accept
> it in order to acquire, install, use, inspect,
> or even experimentally modify GPL'd software.

In the UK it does; you need to get permission to make a copy in memory, or an installed copy on the hard disk. Sounds stupid but it's there.

(-1, Flamebait)

[kubrick]

What is this, stating the fucking obvious week on Slashdot?

First 'use JPEG compression to reduce your bandwidth bills', now a bleedin' GPL primer.

Glad to see they're doing their bit to help the Blackout.

Re:GPL

[Komarosu]

Has it actually been enforced on a mass scale? you only really hear of the minor disputes about copyright. As for actual violations of the GPL there pritty much rare. I've (personally) not heard of any people getting dragged to court about this.

I think in general that people feel more relaxed with the GPL, after knowing the basics of the license people dont seem to worry about what effects it will have on them. Where as when a new MS EULA comes out every person who understands legal writing reads it in pure terror, in hope that nothing more has been made "illegal" in there eyes.

Just another $0.02 from me

its just

[wbg]

pointless to post anything to slashdot.
this rating system is totally superflicious.
long live the trolls

Re:pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Way to have no clue and not read the article.

Where is the BSA for the GPL?

[lynx_user_abroad]

I've always wondered why the Slashdot community (and GPL advocates in general) don't all get together and start a BSA-like (Business Software Alliance) organization to defend and promote the GPL?

sell shares to raise funds. say, $10 a piece.

offer a bounty for whistleblowers (licensees, contractors, coders with options underwater, etc) who can demonstrate uses of GPL'd code in shipping, closed-source products.

conduct BSA-style raids on firms selling closed-source software.

since a proven violation would likely open-source the product, terminate that firm's ability to sell it further, and result in heavy fines (triple damages, plus all the ill-gotten gains) there would be a strong incentive to settle out-of-court.

the settlement funds are fed-back into the organization to offer more bounties, and pay dividends to the share holders, etc.

I realize this would never work (the community would never support it; free software has never been about taking software from others unwilling to give it) but it's fun to dream about it.