Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GPL's Strength

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the the-strength-of-the-gpl dept.

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. . ."

2 of 323 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Letting users do things that are otherwise ille by armb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    > 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.

    --
    rant
  2. Saw something similar about EULAs in general by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.