GPL, MS EULA or otherwise, if it's not signed, in my mind, it's not legal. So it seems to me that ignoring MS's EULAs and adhering to the GPL would be a principle of select morality - i.e. I do what I think is right, when I agree with the goal's of the proposed license.
So, it kind of comes off funny to me when there are people who will get mad when someone does violate the GPL, when a good portion of computer users ignorantly or purposefuly shrug off an MS EULA.
In the end, aren't they pusing an enforced adherence to an unbinding contract, which, legally, could only be construed as suggestive?
Except, there is one key difference, and that is the copyright restrictions placed upon the products, which are enforceable under law. Obviously the copyright can say "You can copy it" vs "You can't." I guess it's MS's goal to stick into those copyright restrictions an extra agenda of fair use rights, which have nothing to do with copying.
My guess then (I'm learning here, be patient) is that an EULA is focused more on fair use rights than copyright circumvention, whereas the GPL is more concerned with your rights to copy, redistribute etc, with less restrictions on usage rights?
Steve
Stuart Jansen wrote:
On Sun, 2003-09-28 at 15:39, Steve Dibb wrote:
This just occurred to me ... if I totally screw the EULA, how can I at the same time praise, promote, and adhere to the GPL?
Hmm.
At least the GPL makes it obvious that you're not legally bound to agree to its terms since you never signed it.
Okay, I feel better now. It's just a matter of agreeing with the licenses that ethically appeal to me. :)
There's more to it than that. With the GPL, you know what you're getting. Many EULA are hidden behind shrink wrap, you can't find out what you're agreeing to until its too late. Most stores won't accept software that has been opened. Some EULA even making opening the shrink wrap that act that confirms your acceptance of it. This is obviously insane, but no one has challenged it yet.
Not all EULA are so insane. For example, while they may contain unreasonable terms, at least Microsoft shows you the agreement attached to updates before manually installing them. As for auto-updates....
The GPL doesn't kick in until you redistribute. You can use and modify GPL software as you like. You aren't bound by its terms until you start to redistribute that software, and then it only limits how you can redistribute it. When you start distributing it, you can charge whatever you want for the software. The only limitation is that you provide the source for a reasonable fee. (You don't even have to give a copy of the source for free.)
In fact, you can distribute GPL software but not put your changes under the GPL as long as you don't distribute the changed version of the software.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________
BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________
List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
____________________
BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________
List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
