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: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: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...)