Slashdot Mirror
Fighting Back Against EULAs
An anonymous reader writes: "Fed up with increasingly obnoxious click-through "agreements" embedded in the retail software I buy, I've posted a very simple script to remove them before clicking "I agree". Without the EULA, I am free to use my software within the bounds of copyright law. Courts have been very inconsistent on the enforceability of EULAs, and I hope this will strengthen consumers' side of the battle. The script is a symbolic gesture as much as anything else, and I want to get people thinking about how ridiculous it is that software companies try to force these one-sided contracts on you after you have paid for something. Also worth a look is cexx.org's Software Vendor License Agreement, which reverses the typical EULA and puts the burden back on the software manufacturer where it belongs."
Remember those little stickers on the CD-ROM pouches? You have already agreed to read the agreement.
Your script needs to be able to display the EULA, and get past it w/o cliking "agree" or whatever.
I've always seen on EULA's something to the effect of: "If you cannot accept this agreement, please return this product to the retailer you purchaced it from". Has anyone ever actually done this?...Returned opened software saying 'I couldn't accept the license agreement'? Could you use this as a way to get around the Windows tax on new PCs?
it seems like this is at least 'unethical,' it seems a great way to point out the ridiculousness of these gawd-aweful 'legal' contracts. C-net/downloads and other pushers of EULA-ridden software downloads should feature this on their frontpage. Get everyone to start seeing these contracts for what they are.
put the what in the where?
If you would take the time to follow th links in the article, you would see that he did not post anything for you to download. He only posted the source.
Great idea. Maybe I can take down the speed limit signs in my neighbourhood so I can go as fast as I like. Doh.
Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
If I am correct that may constitute REVERSE ENGINEERING the software though, which may not be allowed under the DMCA, it's a neat idea, but might not hold up in court, and might actually cause aditional headaches...
[Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
{Traicovn}
I was thinking about this a few days ago...
Send the EULA back to the company with a letter saying that you do not agree to the terms.
See what they can do to stop you from using their software.
It's not a law doofus. That's the point.
-- Proud descendant of semi-nomadic cattle-herders.
I'm going to write some fantastic whizz-bang piece of software just for the pleasure of writting a EULA with a clause that goes "The lisencee of this product must wear a gorilla suit while using said product. Upon violation of this clause, the lisencee agrees to send the author Five (5) kiliograms of Reeses-Pieces(TM) Brand Peanutbutter candies."
Hilary Rosen's speech was about her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money.
Unlike many of the strawman arguments against the DMCA, this instance actually is a violation. You're distributing software which circumvents a technological measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work. Hopefully you'll go to jail, and we can get our first legitimate constitutional test of the DMCA.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Aside from the "real" issue that EULAs are morally wrong, surely an appeal can be made to non-enforcement. I don't know the legal wording, but it seems there's probably a way to say in legal terms "Look, this law/contract gets broken hundreds of times per day, and nobody really cares or enforces it, therefore when you single me out and enforce a EULA on me, you're really being discriminatory and using the law/contract to acheive some other goal".
There must be some legal precedent for the concept of "If you never actively enforce a law, and allow it to be broken (in obvious publicly-visible ways) over and over, you can't then go at a later date enforcing it at will on specific people you decide to target, it's not right".
For that matter, if such a legal principle exists, I'd really like to see someone apply it to the traffic ticket system as well.
11*43+456^2
about this, is that the SW companies want to treat the EULA like a contract. But there's no negotiation. The power of the parties is vastly different. Take it or leave it contracts often don't stand.
I'm obviously not a lawyer, but these are points that have come out in court, when contracts are challanged.
What's so interesting about this, is that it gives the user a chance at negotiation. Sure, it's a farce, but so is the "contract" the EULA tries to put in place. (There's no consideration - you bought the software - money for package - there's the consideration. Now, you must click the EULA too? There's no consideration (transfer of something valuable) happening then, so no contract can ensue.
So changing the contract to something else isn't any more crack-pipe'ish then the usual EULA.
Lastly, have you ever read any of those EULA's? I'd bet that 10 lawyers would come up with 10 significantly different interpretations of the "contract." That doesn't even take into account what the courts might do. So, reading your own EULA is almost futile, and who can afford to get an expert legal opinion on 10+ pages of legaleese for every software product they buy.
EULA's need to get challenged in court, and struck. UCITA needs to die an ugly and nasty death. With UCITA, EULA's will have the real power of law, not just a sham that the SW companies want you to believe.
Make sure you discuss UCITA with your STATE representatives. UCITA has to pass in your state for it to make it into UCC. You might even consider working to pass laws that provide protections against vendors who are (or will be) in UCITA states.
Cheers!
See, for example, the comments about the MAI Systems decsion in this paper:
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
The problem with most packaged software is you don't see the EULA until after you've opened the box, and many stores will refuse to refund money on opened software. Effectively, this means if you don't accept the EULA theres nothing you can do, aside from finding someone else to buy it off you, most likely at a loss.
As for this software, I can't see it holding up in any court. You can't say "I shut my eyes everytime I drove past a speed limit sign" and expect a judge to let you off the hook for going 120.
This also removes any incentive for companies to change their EULAs. After all, they're still getting $50 or whatever from you, whether you avoid the EULA or not. Vote with your wallet people...
"People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
the "don't complain" message is exactly how
we got into most of the mess people are in
today. Lets sit back and say nothing while
large corporations, (whose only motivation is
to TAKE money from everyone it can) dictactes
how we live and what we can and can't do.
You are an indoctrinated, unthinking parrot -- my sig applies to you more than most.
Attempts to circumvent the broken way commercial software is treated in the US are, while sometimes amusing, ultimately counterproductive.
The best way to deal with restrictive EULAs is to use alternative software that is without such restrictions. Where there are no alternatives, and where the software is essential to some necessary task, the EULA will have to be accepted (or the task avoided) - at least until a freer alternative is created. But where there are alternatives, use the software with the better, more customer-centric license.
Stunts such as these don't really change anything. The manufacturer still gets the money from the sale, encouraging him or her to continue down the path of greater and greater restrictions of user freedoms. Better never to buy the software at all.
a) He posted the source.
:)
b) I don't have a Windows machine around to test it. They crash too much, and the software which makes them useful tends to come with crappy EULAs.
c) See b)
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Paperwork for what? I give you money, you give me car, thank you, bye..
Free Mac Mini
My favroit EULA have alwase been the ones used in online forms. Where they put the EULA in a .
I remove all the text and replace it with "I AGREE TO NOTHING".
Is this still legaly binding?
I know I'm going to hell, I'm just trying to get good seats.
Good god... someone start a clock that runs until lawsuits force google to shut this down and the feds arrest everyone who posts a mirror. Save this one to a text file!
But who says I read the sticker on the CD-ROM pouch?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
... is that you cannot, that I'm aware of, go build your own. I went and did some laptop shopping the other day, and I think it was Gateway that was trying to force Office XP on me. I can't buy an OSless laptop, at least not from a reputable dealer. I can't go buy the components to build a laptop. MS has a monopoly here that the retailers helped create.
Anybody have any tips for me? I have a feeling I'm going to have to pay the MS tax, at least for now. But one of my biggest hopes is that Linux laptops will start to become popular, then the legitimate copy of Win2k that I've bought can just be transferred over, instead of having a brand new license that cost me money.
"Derp de derp."
Read your history books. Many people have been killed and/or gone to jail for performing symbolic acts.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
What someone really needs to do is blatantly violate a stupid eula clause and tell the whole world.
For example, someone needs to buy a copy of SQL Server or Oracle and publish benchmarks about the product, thus violating the EULA. Or guy that M$ devel kit and write some GPL's software. Then, when they get taken to court, take it as far as it will go.
Yeah, I know... us mere mortals without bottomless pockets simply can't afford to do this. I can still dream that some tech-savy, eccentric millionaire will take on such a cause.
Method of processing duck feet
Maybe the thing to do when installing the software would be to click the "I do not agree" button.
Then call their tech support line (if it exists!) and complain that the installation program is broken because it fails to install the software.
lots of people are writing and talking about
following laws, this law, that law etc. The
discussion really is a specific instance of
more fundamental questions:
When a law doesn't make sense, should people
follow it? At what point do you realize
that the motivations of the people creating
laws are not aligned with their interests?
Don't talk shite. If it's a contract, where's your signiture? Or that of the vendor?
EULA's are just a pile of FUD, for a start it's not legally a licence since there is no term or renewal requirements in most cases.
It simply is not possible to enter into a contract with a machine, which is what these useless bits of crap ask you to do.
It's akin to paying someone for a car and driving it off the lot without all the paperwork signed.
No, its akin to someone fully paying for a car and refusing to sign a form agreeing to give the seller their firstborn child. It's not a legal requirement for purchase and it's not legally binding even if they did sign it.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
By long-standing common law precedent, if you cross your fingers while you click, you don't have to abide by the terms. If you feel like going the extra mile, you can tell the dialogue box in person that you don't accept some or all of the provisions.
What I'd like to know is who wrote the first software EULA?
Only 'flamers' flame!
The DMCA forbids the creation and distribution of access control circumvention devices. The EULA agreement, during installation, could be interpreted to be a form of access control. The software will not, ordinarily, install on your system unless you click the "I Accept" button. Therefore it is controlling your access to the software and anybody who bypasses the EULA may not be authorized to use the software.
Welcome to the wonders of poorly written legal language...
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I've looked at the code and it does do what it says. Here's the deal with it.
r [ anychar] [anything]is
It runs through the subfolders of the system temp folder
For each file it finds. it opens it to check to see if it's ascii. If it is then it does define te POSSIBILITY of it being an EULA. If that's the case it then checks to see if the file contains the following terms
license(s)
agreement
eula
term(s) and(s) conditions
limited(s) license
limited(s) warranty
it also does a second check for the following
reverse-[anychar]?(s)[anything]enginee
dis-[anychar]assemble
de-[anychar]compile
as-
If either of those shows a match in the file that was found. It asks if you want to overwrite the EULA with a predefined one and if the user selects YES then and ONLY then does it overwrite the specified file
It doesn't modify any other files, it doesn't overwrite files without a specific click on a message box by the user running the script
This code as of 11:53 AM on May 1st is clean and safe to use barring somebody modifies it later
Try looking at it first. It ain't all that complicated.
Open every file, see if it meets certain criteria, then check for certain regexes. That's it.
No problem: use hot steam to melt the glue and gently detach them, rather then "breaking" (i.e. tearing) them. Or just cut through the pouch at the other end, and take the CD out from the rear without "breaking the seal".
Then keep the intact "seal" on file along with all the other license documentation, as proof that you did not agree ;-)
Say no to software patents.
You are disabling "access control".
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
isn't that a direct fracture of the rules as set forth by the DMCA? That would, in effect, be a circumvention of copyright procections. If you don't agree to the terms of use, yet use the software, you have stolen intellectual properties that previously had (even if not tested) legal protection. I haven't noticed many people here stating that just because the GNU GPL hasn't been truly tested in court means it is invalid. I'm not saying I support any such laws, but it is the law, all the same.
Of course, said modifications would likely violate MS's EULA, but maybe you could get around this by running the software through a modified Wine over cygwin.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
<sarcasm>
You insensitive PIG! How dare you assume that we're all in your time zone! You're so timezone-centric. People on Slashdot have got to start being more global. I'm sick of everyone posting things only about YOUR timezone! What about the other 23/24ths of the world, huh??? Bastard!</sarcasm>
Seriously.. just a parody of all the annoying whiners talking about the US-centricity of this site.
T
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
No, I don't want to do that. What a hassle for the less than 5 titles I'd buy in a typical year. Where it gets fun is imagining how much a hassle it would be for Micro$oft having to do so for every one of the millions (billions?) of software products they sell. Simply put, it hurts them a lot more than it hurts me. It would push the cost of software to the point where their sales would drop precipitously. It would move the outrageousness of their requirements to the fore in consumer's minds.
So no, I don't want it, but we need something better than outrageously restrictive EULAs. Reasonable EULAs might nudge me to not caring if they're enforceable or not. If they won't give me reasonable EULAs and insist on contract status for EULAs, then what the heck, give me a real contract.
To expect someone to be bound to the terms of a contract after a sale is ridiculous. Either it is a sale or it isn't. If it's a sale, then I own it and can do with it as I see fit. If it's not a sale then calling it that is a misrepresentation. Call it a rental or a lease, because that's what it amounts to.
If you or I sold someone a car, house or any other property then stuck a contract in the buyer's face and told them "sign it or give me back the property" we'd be a laughing stock, and no court in the world would consider the case. Why should software be any different. If Microsoft and other vendors expect end users to be bound by the terms of a contract they should be required to present the contract in advance of the purchase, period.
slashdot broke my sig
No, just because you put it in writing doesn't mean it's legally binding. This happens all the time. Companies try to get out of responsibility for damages their product could cause by printing up statements absolving them of liability. Nonetheless, if taken to court, they often are found liable anyway.
In the case of EULAs, software companies often overstep their bounds, placing demands on the consumer that are unreasonable because they infringe on the user's own rights.
EG. I once saw an EULA for DeLorme's Street Atlas software that said you agreed not to use the product with any GPS device that wasn't authorized by them for use with their software. Sorry, but they can't tell me I'm violating their license agreement if I plug in a Garmin hand-held GPS to a COM port on my PC, place the Garmin in compatibilty (NMEA) mode, and get it working with Street Atlas. I have the right to use the Garmin with my PC any way I like.
IANAL (yet), but --
This software is no solution. Imagine the following 'solution':
I make brown, sugary, cola-flavored carbonated beverages. I hit upon a great name for my product -- "Coca-Cola". Now, "Coca-Cola" is a trademark. It says so right on the can I'm holding.
The obvious solution? I take out a marker and scratch out the "(R)" symbol next to the mark "Coca-Cola". I make a template that goes over the can so that other people can scratch out the "(R)" never having seen it, knowing only that it might be in their best interests to scratch it out.
Now, is "Coca-Cola" no longer a defensible trademark? Am I allowed to call my brown sugary beverage "Coca-Cola", since I never saw the little "(R)"? Are the users of my template allowed to do so? No.
Now, there are huge problems with EULAs anyway (no meeting of minds = no enforcable contract), but this is not the solution.
The copies of the software that were sold to you are your property, not the vendor's. What the vendor does own is a government-sanctioned "lien" on your copy that prevents you from making addtional copies. Nothing more.
They do not have the right to force you into an additional restrictive contract after the sale. They are free to attempt to get you to agree to such a contract, but you don't have to agree to it.
When you buy a book, does it come with a seal holding the pages together so you can't read it unless you agree not to set up your printing press to mass produce and sell copies of it?
No, but somewhere inside is a copyright notice.
That's the problem. The things EULAs *should* protect are already protected by already-existing copyright law. The fact that these *companies* try to limit you in no way makes you a criminal if you say to hell with them.
That is, unless they keep buying legislation to get their way.
Of course you can, as long as you own the tape. Too many people are throwing out these irrelevant arguments. You can't legally copy that VHS tape, except possibly to make a backup, because there's a Federal law that says you can't. The sticker is a reminder, not the law. When you agree to the EULA that says that you only have the right to use the software so long as you don't publish benchmarks on the sofware, for example, you're agreeing to something for which there is no corresponding law. By not agreeing to the EULA, you DON'T gain the ability to make copies for your friends. That's still a violation of copyright law.
Of course if you had bothered to read the link, you would understand why he is doing this, but hey your far to busy to be informed on what your post.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Umm... has it ever really been court-tested and determined that warranty seals/stickers on PCs were legal and binding?
I used to work for a couple "mom and pop" type computer builders that always placed those "void if broken" seals on PCs. I don't think any of us really expected them to be legally binding if we got in a big fight with a customer. It was just an attempt to deter people from tinkering around inside their PC if they didn't know what they were doing.
In fact, we had sort of an unwritten policy that for our better (and more knowledgeable) customers, we'd skip putting on the sticker.
The fact is, PCs are designed around and purchased because of their expandability and upgradeability. It runs counter to the entire design and architecture of the system to claim that opening the case makes it void of all warranties. (In fact, most items in the system would still be covered under manufacturer's original warranty anyway. Maxtor isn't going to say "Sorry, but we heard you opened the case. You can't send us back that defective drive now.")
Or would luke-warm, or even cold steam do the trick?
-- SIGFPE
EULA's typically say "if you do not agree blah blah return the software to the place of purchase for a refund." But the retailer typically has a policy of refunds only on UNOPENED software. So you have a catch-22: you can't return the software once it's opened, but you can't refuse the EULA without opening the software.
Here's the solution:
Go down to OrificeMax, Staples, Fry's, Wal*Mart, whatever your local software store is, and demand to see the EULA for some piece of software before you buy it. If they refuse to let you begin the install on a showroom computer so you can see the EULA, tell them "Fine, I'm never buying software here again." If they DO let you see the EULA, tell them "The terms of the EULA are unacceptable. I'm not purchasing the software." Then walk out. Let them cancel the installation and figure out how to repackage the software for sale (remember, the seal on the CD slipcover or jewel case has been broken by this time).
Once software companies realize that consumers won't buy software unless they can first see an acceptable EULA, things will change.
--
Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
I betcha there's an EULA on any free software you use as well. Maybe not as nefarious as KaZaA's "all your network resource are belong to us", but something along the lines of having to redistribute code changes, or whatever clauses for it's flavour of gpl/bsd/lgpl/whatever.
do not read this line twice.
Here's an idea. Get a bunch of friendly lawyers (or pay some unfriendly ones). Get a good Perl programmer. Put them in a room together and ask them to come up with a EULA translation script - something that can have an EULA pasted in to it, parse it (as best it can) and churn out a nice, short, readable summary that ditches all the standard rubbish and tells you in plain English what your rights are when you install the software.
:)
Obviously this thing would not be infallable so it would need a friendly disclaimer somewhere saying "if in doubt read the damn thing yourself" but I would love a tool which can spot the nasty bits of a EULA and display them in a readable form. Stuff like spyware installation, "all your personal data are belong to us" and that kind of thing.
OK it's probably not a practical idea, but I can dream
You insensitive PIG
Are you my wife? Sounds like my wife's online
How dare you assume that we're all in your time zone!
There are others?
You're so timezone-centric
hey, no 50 dollar words here. I can barely spell kat
People on Slashdot have got to start being more global
How's this?
Global SlashDotPeople as long
I'm sick of everyone posting things only about YOUR timezone
Other people are posting about MY timezone? Then I guess I can assume you're all in MY timezone
Bastard!
So THAT'S why my momma won't tell me about my daddy
He has two regex sections. The first starts with "Set term1 = New RegExp" and then defines three attributes for term1.
The second section starts with "Set term2 = New RegExp" (note term2), but then defines three attributes for term1.
This must not have been found in testing, as the keywords in the regexes are found in just about any EULA. Still, it's worth noting. I'm not a VB programmer and I saw that immediately -- are there any other potential errors in the code?
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
This agreement covers all software that is distributed with the Dell computer, for which there is no separate license agreement between you and the manufacturer or owner of the software (collectively the "Software"). By opening or breaking the seal on the Software packet(s), installing or downloading the Software, or using the Software that has been preloaded or is embedded in your computer, you agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. If you do not agree to these terms, promptly return all software items (disks, written materials, and packaging), and delete any preloaded or embedded Software.
So if you boot up a new Dell PC, even once, you have used the software, and have agreed to the EULA. So does this mean that I have agreed that if I don't agree, I have to return all the Software? Do I get a refund for that? Or did it come "free" with my machine?
It just amazes me how much I can agree to by simply booting up a computer, or opening a software package.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Repeat after me... The Slashdot editor are not your mother. They are not going to test every little bitty piece of software for you.
Just like any other link found anywhere else on the net you have be a big boy (or girl) and decide for your self if you want to click on it.
Imagind if you purchased a car, and the first time you went to fill it up at the gas station, you found a sticker that said:
I don't think that any court in the country would accept that as a binding contract -- yet people expect that to work for software.Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Many replies are along the lines of "Even if you don't agree to the EULA, you're still bound by it if you use the software" or "It's illegal to use the software if you haven't agreed to the EULA". This is flat-out wrong.
If I buy a book, then I have bought a copy of some information, embedded in a physical medium.
If I buy a CD, then I have bought a copy of some information, embedded in a physical medium.
If I buy a piece of software then I have bought a copy of some information, embedded in a physical medium. In the first two cases, I was clearly an owner of a copy of the information; it's pretty hard to argue that in this case, I'm not an owner of a copy of the information.
As the owner of a copy of some information, I have certain rights granted by law that are explicitly NOT infringing of the copyright of the one that created that information. For software, these rights EXPLICITLY include the right to copy it to a hard drive, to copy it into memory for the purposes of running the software, and to make backups.
So: after I walk out of the store carrying my box, I am at that moment entitled to copy the contents of that CD to a hard drive, and to execute the software. If I get home and do so, using my own home-grown installer that copies the bits off the CD, then I have a copy of the software, installed, which I have the right to run. At that point, I am fully entitled to run the software, and I have not agreed to any EULA, nor have I violated any law - I have used only the rights explicitly granted to me by the copyright law. It would be absure to think that I am now bound by the EULA.
This article describes a method for installing software that's slightly more convenient than manually unpacking it, creating registry keys, and so on, but has the same effect: the software is installed on your hard drive and you have not agreed to the EULA.
This of course only applies to cases where you bought a copy of the software (as in, you exchanged money for a physical copy of the software, with no other terms imposed). Something like Oracle isn't sold like this: you get a copy of Oracle after signing a contract with Oracle, and that contract includes many of the normal EULA terms. That's a completely different situation: you didn't get the copy of the software until AFTER you agreed to some limitations on your use of that software; you are bound by those limitations. Software downloads are similar: you're often required to agree to the EULA before the download begins. It's the case where you got your copy of the software BEFORE agreeing to the limitations that's the more interesting (and much more common) one - and in that one, you're entitled to install and use the software without agreeing to the EULA.
It boils down to this: The law that the software developers are attempting to use to make EULAs binding is copyright law: the unspoken claim is that it is illegal to make a copy of the software without agreeing to the EULA. This is just not true.
He's already paid for that piece of plastic and the fancy spiral dot patterns on it. He has legal access to everything on it. The access control was legally satisfied when he walked out the front door of the store. He doesn't have to perform any sort of dance afterward. He doesn't even have to peel off the cover! He can sit on it, throw it in the air, put it in the microwave, put it in his PC, take it out, put it in the CDROM drive, spin it around, shine lights on it, observe the fancy reflections, even record the fancy reflections and then modify the recording of the reflections. He can even take it to the range and use it for a target if he wants.
What he cannot do is sell or distribute copies of it.
What he is doing with readily available tools is no different than scribbling notes with pen or pencil in the margins of a book that you have purchased. Yes, he is modifying it, but that is not against the law, even the DMCA.
Indeed, what he is doing is more akin to turning on a light so that it is easier to read the book you just bought.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
But isn't the script modifying the software therefore breaking the rules anyway? As to stickers on CDs - what if the person's blind and can't see the EULA or the sticker?
Video Game cheats, hints a
I guess you're right, though. I can't expect even the bare minimum from /. web-linkers.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
The Product is licensed, not sold.
The Product != a copy of the Product. The Product is a program; the law defines a copy of the Product as a medium containing such a program: "'Copies' are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." (17 USC 101).
IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL OR USE THE PRODUCT; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND.
This is a "linchpin clause"; the enforceability of the entire EULA hangs on the enforceability of this sentence. This means I should be able to format c: and return the XP discs to the OEM. If the OEM refuses to give me the "full refund" on the OEM license fee for this copy of Windows, then the OEM becomes a party to my violation of the EULA. Would "I cannot comply with the EULA if the OEM refuses to issue a refund" hold up in a small-claims lawsuit against the OEM?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Well, saying you've found a lawyer that will argue a case is like saying you've found a prostitute that's agreed to sleep with you.
The issue is: what would a judge do? In some cases in the US they have ruled that EULA's are binding but the higher up the court system you go the less truck this gets and late last year a judge (in Florida?) ruled that no renewal term or requirements means this is not even a licence never mind a binding one.
In the UK several on-line pricing boobs have revolved around the question of whether the vendor (ie the website) was totally automated or not. The courts finding that an automated system is not able to form a contract and therefor a miss-priced item does not have to be honoured, while any human intervention in the acceptance system (in one case simply having someone manually checking that buyer's emails go out to legal email addresses) makes a contract which does have to be honoured.
EULA depend on fear of court action, but there are almost no cases of a successful prosecution that did not in fact resolve back to an ordinary copyright violation.
Generally the courts take the position that if I pay for goods and you give me them with no requirement that I ever give them back then it is a sale and I am free to do as I wish other than breach laws such as copyright. Anything else I agree with you has to fit inside contract law and have such items as consideration and evidence of agreement on both sides (eg signitures from seller and buyer), lack of coercion, limits on what can be in a contract etc. Everything else is just wank.
EULA are no more imporant or useful than the typical lawyer, but they can be just as scary too.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Microsoft reccomends their software to millions of people. And based on the many BSODs I (and my customers get) it sure as Hell(tm) wasn't tested very much.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Without the EULA, I am free to use my software within the bounds of copyright law.
Which may, in fact, be not at all. Absent the EULA, you have no license. Absent a license, the bounds of the copyright act preclude any reproduction, derivation or distribution of the copy you have. Since USE of software has been treated by the courts as a reproduction (since it entails loading a copy from a fixed disk to RAM), your unlicensed execution of the program may well be violating their copyright. The virtue of the EULA is it gives you a use license. Since you bypassed the EULA, it is unlikely you would prevail on any implied license theory.
In short, if you are serious about this as a legal strategy, please first consult with competent counsel you have engaged who has carefully studied the particular facts of your case. If you are reading this proposal, please consider the source and the possibility that the legal advice in the original posting (and this response -- which is not legal advice by the way) may be worth what you paid for it.
If you don't own the copy, but only the disk, then it seems that section 117 has been legal-hacked.
The letter of United States law states that the disc is the copy, making it a logical impossibility to own one but not the other. (Law outside the United States may differ.) According to 17 USC 101: "'Copies' are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device."
I'm not a lawyer, but here's my armchair analysis of some sample contract language:
"The software is licensed not sold." You bought a copy, which gives you (the owner of a copy) rights under section 117, and you are licensing the work itself, which gives you additional rights.
"The copy of the software is licensed not sold." This language would be completely equivalent to a rental agreement. (Under section 109, only the copyright owner can authorize software rental agreements.)
Will I retire or break 10K?
Being shiny and official-looking, it still deterred 95% of the bozos who didn't know what they were doing.
In fact, after fixing a customer's PC once, she complained that I (an HP Authorized Technician) had broken the seal. I had to explain to her that the seal really didn't mean anything and that her warranty was still valid, but I don't think she really believed me.
"Anything is better than IE, and you can quote me on that." -- Wil Wheaton.
It seems like the standard (BS) agreement. But I found it interesting that THIS agreement covers ALL the software that is distributed with the computer. So I wonder what would happen to Dell's EULA if they sold a system with Linux on it? Does that mean that their EULA would supercede the GPL? That doesn't sound right.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
You'd think they'd do that. But they don't.
None of the scripts I have hit did. Even sun's java download sites don't.
I know I'm going to hell, I'm just trying to get good seats.
Someone needs to roll this script in a VIRUS scanner. So whenever the app gets on the machine it gets scanned and flagged as a virus, with the FIX option then removing the EULA.
:)
MS calls the GPL liscence Viral , Hell they started calling names first, if you wrap this in a Virus scanner and get hauled into court , the judge ask "why you felt your prodect could remove the EULA" look you honor at all these press clippings calling the GPL if the GPL can be viral so can the MS EULA, and Hence I can remove it
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
I have my 11 year old daughter install software. I have not given her permission to enter into a binding contract.
-- Will program for bandwidth
The reasons EULAs and such things are done, from what I know (IANAL), is for a reason called "Best Effort".
Best Effort means that if and when your company ever gets hauled into court for some stupid lawsuit, you need to be able to show that you made a "best effort" against whatever event that caused the lawsuit. If you can show that, the liklihood that you won't be held liable is higher.
EXAMPLE: I own a house. I have a sidewalk. During the winter it gets ice on it. I go out twice a day and salt the sidewalk to prevent ice, as well as scoop the ice and snow from it. An old lady comes and slips. She sues me for poor maintenance of the sidewalk. I can present my case as a "best effort" case. I did my best to prevent the sidewalk from being slippery and therefore it is not my fault that she still slipped and fell.
With EULAs, it's a matter of CYA (Cover Your Ass). If you didn't put one and got hauled into court because your software farked up a whole bunch of financial records, for instance, the court would say, "Look, you didn't even try to warn the user that your software might screw up, therefore you're liable." With an EULA you at least have shown that you tried to protect yourself. The EULA itself doesn't necessarily have to be enforceable; the fact that it makes an effort in a 'safe' direction is enough.
Blog,Twitter
Yes, you may own the copy. However, under copyright laws, you cannot produce a copy of that copy without permission of the copyright holder. Thus, in order to copy the code into RAM or a hard disk, you must agree to a license which allows you to do so. Otherwise, you are creating a copy without permission of the copyright holder
This ignores the notion of "fair use" because I'm not familiar enough with the restrictions (IANAL, just in case that was not obvious). Creating a copy of the program on your hard disk is hardly a "backup" of the original if it is the only copy you use (and this ignores the second (partial) copy of the program in memory). This is somewhat akin to the GPL argument on copying, where you do not have to accept the license, but if you do not, then nothing else gives you permission to distribute copies (or derivative works).
I recall a similar argument has been used before in court for disallowing copies. Unfortunately, I do not recall the specific case or the result.
Since USE of software has been treated by the courts as a reproduction (since it entails loading a copy from a fixed disk to RAM), your unlicensed execution of the program may well be violating their copyright.
Yes, once upon a time the courts made that ruling. Then congress passed this:
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Thankfully it was a pre-owned house, and was built at a time when people cared about quality construction, and I don't have an HOA...
But anyhow, by signing such agreements, without reading them over carefully, you are simply allowing others to, in effect, "lord" over the land you own (or will own, in time). Before I would sign an HOA agreement, I would read it super carefully, and if I didn't understand it, I would take it to a lawyer who has experience in such areas. Any part of it I didn't like I would cross through, make amendments, etc - it is a business contract, plain and simple - within reason, you should be able to do what you want on your property. I know of people who have been fined by their HOA for simply changing their oil in their garage! That is ABSURD.
However, most EULAs you don't get the chance to read before "opening the box", and after opening the package you can't get a refund if you don't like the terms, nor can you change and agree to the terms at will like any other contract (which in B2B large software contract jobs, is part of the business - if you are a business and want a copy of Oracle for your business, you sit down and sign a contract with Oracle, and you "discuss"/"haggle" over the terms over a period of several weeks, before making the final signature)...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
However, under copyright laws, you cannot produce a copy of that copy without permission of the copyright holder. Thus, in order to copy the code into RAM or a hard disk, you must agree to a license which allows you to do so.
Wrong.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Read the EULA before you click "accept". If you don't agree with the terms and conditions then don't install the software.
...even if they require handing over your first born or something.
But I already have the legal right to install the software! Do I have to quote chapter and verse of Copyright Law?
Here's how it works. The author creates a work and publishes or distributes it. At this point in time there are two sets of right bound to the work. The first set of rights are exclusive to the author. These include the right to distribute, modify and generally copy the work. The second set is not exclusive to the author, but belong to the public or to the possessors/owners of the copies. These rights include using the work in its customary manner. If it's software, the author does not have the right to prevent you from using it.
If I don't accept the terms of the EULA, and I can somehow install the software without assenting to the EULA, then I have the right to use the software.
Software that companies write belongs to them so they should be free to do whatever
Absolutely not. The only thing that belongs to the software companies are the rights to copy, distribute and modify the software. They do not have the exclusive right to use the software.
"Intellectual Property" is not property. This has been asserted by the courts before. Don't let the name fool you, it is just a linguistic shorthand.
If I don't agree to the my landlord's rental agreement, I still can't live in his/her apartment, because that apartment is his/her property. But if I don't agree to your EULA, you can't prevent me from using the software, because the copy in my possession is not your property.
If you want more restrictive terms over the use of the software, then you may attempt to get me to agree to them. But you will have to do so before I aquire the software. That may mean you have to forego selling your software through traditional retail channels. Too bad. You are not king of the world so you don't have the right to make up the rules as you go along.
Such a clause would be illegal.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
The GPL is not a EULA! It's a copyright license. It lets you do things that normal copyright law does not allow. EULAs take away rights which normal copyright law does not. You don't need to agree to the GPL to *use* a piece of GPL'd software. There is a massive difference.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
If you try to copy it and redistribute it, now, that changes the situation, but we aren't talking about that; we're just talking about your right to use the copy you bought.
The title of that page is apparantly "Included Page Header"
Doh!
My Heart Is A Flower
This may be a great idea, actually!
Set up a EULA with LEGAL terms, verify it with a lawyer so that it does not constitute an illegal contract - Yet make it Absurd. THEN, get your friend to sue you over the absurdity of the EULA and let your friend win.
Would this then constitue a legal precedent against EULA's?
--Jeff
ipv6 is my vpn
Reread my post. I said it would cost the vendor more. My point is that the vendors are pushing us towards a mutually unacceptable solution. They're doing so under the color of some phantom law which doesn't exist in non-UCITA states. I'm not averse to using their aversion to going there to push them towards a more acceptable solution.
Umm, it is perfectly acceptable and legal to change a purchase agreement before signing it. If they also sign it, your changes are then a part of the contract...
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Lawyers might shout that voluntarily applying the vb script mentioned is not lawful (perhaps using the DMCA). But what about the following scheme:
Hacker R. Hood makes a benevolent virus, whose only function is to present a user, while he is installing, with a neutered and generic EULA for him to agree to. If the user agrees to this plausible text, the _virus_ presses the OK-button of the hidden original EULA. This way the user has plausible deniablity: he can really believe that he has done everything by the book. But when legal problems raise their ugly heads, it sould be possible to determine that the user himself did not agree with any EULA belonging to the product, and hence is not bound to it! Futhermore, the original software has not been changed in any way, so no right will be voided. (IANAL, of course.)
The likely result will be that EULA's will be changed so that contracting a virus will be considered a violation of EULA, adding to the already considerable pains of corporate software users...
But it only applies if you want to violate copyright law...
I.e., it only applies if you want to do something that you couldn't do if it didn't give you permission. Like distribute copies of it.
So you have plenty of time to study it before you comit yourself to agreeing to it. It offers you the right to distribute copies, but in return it demands that you distribute copies of the source. If you don't want to use it, you just stay within the copyright law, and you never need to pay attention to it.
Of course, then you can't distribute any copy, much less an altered one.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
There's a fairly large difference between "you can't run this software unless you dance like a chicken" and "you can't distribute modified versions of this software unless you dance like a chicken".
99% of users (if not more) don't give a Remote Controlled Rat's ass about distributing modified versions, thus the latter EULA would save the world a whole lot of chicken-dancing.
"The Crystal Wind is the Storm, and the Storm is Data, and the Data is Life"
Interesting... but can't they establish a policy that I can't buy the system without MS garbage on it?
"Derp de derp."
That's just Dell's opinion. Contract law actually requires (for most contracts) the presence of an intentional mark, made for the express purpose of agreement to the contract. None of those acts described fit the bill; they are all things that occur in the normal course of usage of the software.
This is like you coming up to me on the street, selling me a newspaper, and then saying to me, "By opening that newspaper, you agree to never use it to line your birdcage." This is patently ridiculous - it's my newspaper now, not yours, and if Polly needs some cage lining, there's nothing you can do about it. Your statement that I agree has no force, because I do not in fact agree. Agreements require actual two-way consent, and for commercial software, that means signing real contracts.
This would be simple from a software company's perspective - require businesses that obtain your software to mandate that customers sign EULA cards or somesuch. But as it is, these "agreements" are not agreed upon, and so are not binding contracts.
I have my pet rock hit the keys. I just hope they never throw it in jail.
Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
This agreement covers all software that is distributed with the Dell computer, for which there is no separate license agreement between you and the manufacturer or owner of the software (collectively the "Software").
the GPL is considered a separate license agreement between you and the manufacturer or owner of the software so that agreement does not apply to the GPL'd stuff installed.
may constitute REVERSE ENGINEERING th
If this script is no circumvention device i do not know what is. To write the script you first have to reverse engeneer (i dont know how to do that).
On the other part: removing a gnu licence from a source file does not make it less gnufull.
On the other side I as a consumer would not purchase a product that did not have a contract I was willing to live with. If I buy a sharp knife I should have the right to cut myself with it. If I buy a book I should have the right to warp my mind with it. With software I think the producer should have the right to limit software to one concurrent use per licence (on music I would be careful to interpret this as playing the media from one player at one time regardless of the format of the media playing at the time, so if I own the cd I would want to be able to play an mp3 of the music so long as I'm not playing the CD at the same time. I think thats a valid restriction and gets around the copying for a friend issue without restricting my ability to listen from multiple formats without making multiple purchases). I am sure that none of what I just said is written into any type of law but thats the type of legislation I'd support.
Basically I want the right to choose my media and player (whether that be OS, emulator or music player, or even whether I read electronic text or plain paper text of the work). I also want the right to possess the particular work in multiple formats at one time without requiring multiple purchases to the right to own the said work. That means I want to have the work on cd and tape and electronic format all at the same time. I don't think anyone but me (or my direct family I don't know how exactly thats categorized) should be able to use the work without purchasing that right.
A tricky part is reverse engineering. I think there should be some rights for a user to be able to do this so that they can use the word processor with a mod that they provide to edit a different type of word processor file. I don't think the person should be allowed to reverse engineer the product to make thier own competing product using that knowledge. On the other hand there is the issue of "linux support" (replace linux with your favorite unsupported OS) where it would be nice if reverse engineering were allowed in order to support new platforms. I think that with that the company writing the original product should be a part of the equation in that they came up with the "way to do it" and should keep credit and benifits for that and yet they should be required to offer the new platform support to owners of the original license but maybe not offer the same level of technical support or some requirement that the person writing the new platform option be required to offer support. Thats a tricky relationship that I am not entirely sure how to handle because the orignal creator came up with the "way to do it" and if you reverse engineer that out you should be forced to "pay" for the right to use that information and yet I don't think the manufacturer should be able to limit what OS or media you use thier product on by forced lack of support.
Ok I think I've rambled on here past the point of a coherant thought so I'll close this poist.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
What are you really supposed to do with it?
Give it to the teeny-bopper checking you out at Best buy?
Give it to the manager?
Or the software manufacturer?
either way, how do you get your money back?
--john
Slashdot: you'll not find a more wretched collection of villainy and disreputable types...
Honestly I as a software producer ... I am perfectly willing to require you to sign terms of use before you purchase the software.
Sounds good to me. I might even consider purchasing your software based solely on your honesty.
What gets my goat are all the other software producers pretending they're retailers or that their software is a retail product. I haven't see too many websites that say "Buy a Fubarino2002 License Here!" Nor have I seen and shrinkwrapped boxes that say "New! Snafuwitz Plus License!" Nope. They all pretend that they're selling a product, then get mad when someone believes them.
On the other side I as a consumer would not purchase a product that did not have a contract I was willing to live with.
Putting aside the point that you don't even know what the contract is until you've purchased the right to enter into it, I don't know of too many consumer products that require a contract to begin with. Toasters? Windshield wipers? Ceramic floor tile? Hah!
If it walks like a sale, and quacks like a sale, then it must be a sale, and the UCC applies.
A tricky part is reverse engineering.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall that reverse engineering is an exclusive right of the author. I also happen to live in a state where reverse engineering is explicitely a right of the public. Of course, that's not much you can *do* with the reversed engineering under the DMCA, such as telling other people about it, but it's still your right if you wish to excercise it in privacy of your own home and hard drive.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Yes, once upon a time the courts made that ruling. Then congress passed [Section 117]
Wrong, so wrong. Both the Southeastern and MAI cases postdated adoption of Section 117 of the Copyright Act. Both courts held that the defendant was not an "owner" of the copy (the legal significance of the "you are a bailee, not owner" arguments). Like it or not, the Congress reversed the "owner" issue in the MAI case as part of the DMCA, but only when the software is used to maintain a machine. Thus, while the Congress repaired the situation somewhat, at the same time they ratified the earlier Court's decision about its inapplicability to non-title-holders.
There are other cases (also post-Section 117) that tend to cast doubt on the broad construction you would like to assert.
As I said earlier -- don't rely on your own legal advices here, or free advice of others -- this is tricky stuff and you are sure to get your money's worth for the free advice.
in NH you don't need insurance.. And why do I need a license to own it? I only need one to drive it or register it..
Free Mac Mini
I mean, where is the difference? The click-thrugh and shrinkwrap-licenses are totaly onesided, and normally contain some clause stating that you already agreed by opening whatever package to be able to read them. Wy not send letters around with a wording like "By opening this letter you agreed to ..." whatever. Also note, that there is already a contract. you entered it when paying for the product. Usually content, software and the like are automatically protected by copyrights, and that is sufficient. How can that funny clickaway agreement do away with an existing contract anyway, and why should anyone agree to give away his rights to enter into such an unfavorable and onesided agreement?
Even funnier is the idea to make that agreement subject to changes at the whim of the vendor (by refering to some website in the agreement). What is a privacy-policy worth that can be changed any day by one party?
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
The software has no more or fewer rights than I do. I am no more under any obligation to accept their terms after a sale than they are to accept mine. They might really want to have the terms of their agreement apply to me, but I paid my money without agreeing to anything.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Well, the guy didnt post an executable, he posted source.
So if you know VB, you could read it over and over til you are sure it contains no malicious code.
No sig for the moment.
And only slightly less readable!
No sig for the moment.
We live in a DEMOCRACY! THOSE BASTARDS WORK *FOR US*. All we have to do is get all of America to agree.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
Set the amount that you agree to some very low number, say 1 out of 100. Unless the EULA'd program uninstalls itself as soon as it detects a "No, I do not agree" button click, the program will undoubtedly run correctly after one or two hundred iterations.
The neat thing is that every time the script is run with a positive "I agree" button click, another universe where this did not happen must be created. So on the balance nobody is agreeing to anything.
Of course since you don't know if your automoton script made the "I agree" button click, or if the EULA window just gave up or crashed after 100 or 100,000 iterations, so you are not guilty of having consciously agreed to the contract in this universe either. I think the odds of a windows program breaking from memory leak or memory error after 100,000 iterations is more likely than that I would read a EULA before clicking on it.
It would be the same thing as if an antivirus program stopped the EULA from appearing in the first place, or clicked through it before you saw it. Or maybe some spyware broke the EULA window. (hmm.. ) Windows in general is so chaotic and untrustworthy it is ridiculous to imagine a contract being upheld on it. In this universe or any other..
That's what I was trying to get at. I was just drawing a distinction (one I think MS would agree with) between changing my environment without touching the Windows libraries and executables vs. using a debugger or so to modify Windows to suit my purposes. One would (I think) comply with MS's EULA while the other would not.
Of course the whole thing is silly...there's nothing inherently different in actuality between the two approaches. These are all technicalities. Someone could design a filesystem, where each byte is a seperate "file." A compatability layer would map this to a FAT32 virtual filesystem. Then when you want to modify any program, you just edit at the byte (file) level, replacing old files with your own. AFAIK, this is technically feasible and perfectly legal, and also completely gets around an EULA that prohibits modification.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Wrong, so wrong. Both the Southeastern and MAI cases postdated adoption of Section 117 of the Copyright Act. Both courts held that the defendant was not an "owner" of the copy (the legal significance of the "you are a bailee, not owner" arguments).
Right... Because the defendant was maintaining a computer owned by someone else. I was referring to cases before Section 117 was passed, which are the reason that Section 117 was passed in the first place.
There are other cases (also post-Section 117) that tend to cast doubt on the broad construction you would like to assert.
What cases would that be? How about one where the owner of the CD is being sued for copying software into ram. Post Section 117, you won't find one.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
It seems like the standard (BS) agreement. But I found it interesting that THIS agreement covers ALL the software that is distributed with the computer. So I wonder what would happen to Dell's EULA if they sold a system with Linux on it? Does that mean that their EULA would supercede the GPL? That doesn't sound right.
Of course not. Software EULA's prohibit you from doing things with the software that are not already covered by copyright law. You cannot distribute commercial software because of copyright, not because of the EULA. You can only distribute GPL'd software because of the GPL. Without the GPL, the software would fall under standard copyright laws. The GPL gives you more rights, it doesn't take any away.The issue isn't whether the computer is owned, but whether the copy is owned by the person asserting the Section 109 or 117 right. There is more than ample case law, including the dicta in the cases already cited, the Apple and CMG cases and various other cases on point.
Once again, fair colleagues, rely not upon my ravings or those of my antagonists for your best advices, but rather on the advices of counsel you have hired -- this is hardly a slam-dunk question as some have characterized it, and it would be a shame to lose big because you relied upon the advices read here.
You don't need to agree to the GPL to *use* a piece of GPL'd software.
Why not?
Same way you can own a bank account without owning the ledger. Title to intangible personal property is an interesting thing.
Fair enough, but that doesn't apply to either of those two cases.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Because US Code Title 17 section 117 (a) (1) says so.
So it's no different from any other EULA.
Also, because the GPL says so (i.e. it unilaterally grants you the right to use the code, whether or not you agree to follow its conditions).
Where?
Of course, redistributing the code is another matter, and does require a license. But you were talking about use.
The question is, can an EULA override section 117, if you accept it? The GPL clearly states "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License." Section 117 is not an express provision of the GPL.
Prizog: Because US Code Title 17 section 117 (a) (1) says so.
anthony_dipierro: So it's no different from any other EULA.
EULAs purport to restrict your rights by claiming that (for various reasons) that section of US Code doesn't apply, or that you must waive your rights under it in order to run the program, or by pretending that section of US code doesn't exist. Different courts have ruled variously on these claims.
The GPL does none of this. It doesn't explicitly acknowledge the existence of the above section (and it need not). And (perhaps in case that section is repealed or other countries don't have analagous laws), it explicitly unilaterally grants the rights to use the program, whether or not you agree to the terms of the license. So, there is a major difference between the GPL and EULAs.
Prizog: Also, because the GPL says so (i.e. it unilaterally grants you the right to use the code, whether or not you agree to follow its conditions).
anthony_dipierro: Where?
Section 0, second paragraph:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
anthony_dipierro: The question is, can an EULA override section 117, if you accept it?
That's an important question with respect to proprietary software, and an irrelevent one with respect to Free Software, including GPL-licensed software. Courts have ruled both ways (MAI v. Peak and Adobe v. Softman come to mind, although maybe I have that last one wrong.)
anthony_dipierro: The GPL clearly states "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License." Section 117 is not an express provision of the GPL.
None of these things are "use" or "run". And, if you'll see above, section 0 *does* explicitly allow running the program.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
EULAs purport to restrict your rights by claiming that (for various reasons) that section of US Code doesn't apply, or that you must waive your rights under it in order to run the program, or by pretending that section of US code doesn't exist.
None of which changes the actual law.
"The act of running the Program is not restricted"
That however does...
So I guess if you take the position that EULAs are enforcible upon users who merely run the software, then you could argue that the GPL is different.
But my position (and the one of current court precedent), is that you only need to accept an EULA if you want to do things which are exclusive rights of the copyright holder. In that sense, the GPL is exactly like any other EULA. You get some things (the right to copy software), and lose others (the right to sell those lawfully made copies).
Courts have ruled both ways (MAI v. Peak and Adobe v. Softman come to mind, although maybe I have that last one wrong.)
MAI and Softman are not examples of cases against end-users.
Duh. But it may affect the rights of users of proprietary software.
That's what I meant, obviously.
How could the GPL possibly change the law? It could (and does) affect your rights as a redistributor,
Obviously I meant that it supercedes the law, not that it changes the law.
but in the US, it does not affect your rights as a user (one who only runs the program).
Sure it does. It affects your rights as a user if you are not the owner of a lawfully obtained copy of the software.
I take no position on that -- but proprietary software companies and courts do. The difference between the GPL and a EULA is that the GPL does not even *try* to put any restrictions on users who merely run the program.
The difference is that the GPL admits that it cannot. Some propritary software companies try to claim that they can, but this is merely a scare tactic, nothing more. Courts have never ruled against end-users who merely run the software. Not in the last 20 years, anyway.
Except that EULAs claim to be binding merely by running the software, while the GPL does not. Whether those claims hold up in courts is irrelevant. And the crucial difference is that the GPL grants additional rights, EULAs claim to remove rights.
If Microsoft's EULA is binding merely by running the software, then so is the GPL. The right to run the software is one of the rights given by the GPL. If you don't have a Section 117 right to run the software, then you must accept the GPL in order to run the software. Every EULA I've ever read granted additional rights, and removed others. The GPL is no exception. It grants additional rights, and removes others.
Lawfully made copies of GPL software are those made pursuant to sections 1-3. That is, if you wish to lawfully make copies (except as provided for in section 117 (a)(1) and various other sections involving fair use etc.), you must agree to the terms of the GPL, which govern how you may sell those copies.
Right. If you don't agree to the GPL, you are permitted to first sale rights. If you do agree to the GPL, those rights are taken away. It's just like any other EULA. It gives some rights, in exchange for others.
In the case of the GPL, I can't think of a way where one would be able to run the software, but not be (or be authorized by (see the statute)) the owner of a lawfully obtained copy.
Try thinking outside your little box of ideas. I could name a million situations, but I won't bother.
No, the GPL unilaterally grants that right, whether or not you agree to its other provisions -- RTFL, esp. section 0, para 2 and section 5 (noting the omission of the word run).
Wrong.
Except that it doesn't remove any rights you might otherwise have under copyright law.
Wrong.
If you do agree to the GPL, you still have the right of first sale, with respect to copies you obtained other than by copying (i.e. copies you bought on CD).
Maybe, but if that's true then it's true for all EULAs.
Of course, the right of first sale simply doesn't apply to copies that you made yourself, since you had to agree to the terms of the GPL to make them.
Wrong. Read the law again.
No rights are taken away -- you have more rights than you had before you agreed to the GPL (see chart above).
Wrong.
But you are clearly too stupid to understand this point (I saw another whole thread about this, and concluded that you were a moron, but I was already in this discussion), so I won't bother to argue it with you.
No, if I was stupid I would agree with you.
I had roughly this same argument from another perspective with aozilla a while back, and s/he's a moron too.
Everyone's a moron except you. Go on believing that.
So, you get the last post. You're still a moron.
There. You've said it three times, so it must be true now...
I have read a few MS EULAs; and, I don't recall seeing any rights their EULA gives you that doesn't already exist for a legally obtained copy of software. Can you give an example?
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
That clause says that you must pay for a seperate copy of the software for each computer on which it is installed. How is this different existing copyright law?
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
Not quite true. Copyright law allows you to make copies for personal use. The courts have ruled that you are allowed to "format shift" copies of music for your personal use. That is, you buy a CD and you are legally allowed to rip it and put a copy on your computer for your personal use. I am not aware of any law or court ruling that says this does not apply to software. Without an EULA prohibiting it, I would be allowed to buy software, install it on my workstation and laptop, as long as I am the only person that uses both of them and both are not in use at the same time.
I am also doubtful of your statement even if the above wasn't true. Copyright law requires that you pay for every copy you use. This clause also requires the same thing. You must pay full market value for every copy that you use. The only difference is that the clause saves MS, not the user, a couple of bucks because they don't have to send a seperate CD.
Sorry, don't see how that is any additional right you don't have under copyright law.
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers