Oh dear, yet agin!
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Alcibiades Jul 19, 2008 2:42 AM EDT |
Why do people not understand this, its really very simple? It has nothing whatever to do with Eulas The issue is, not all clauses in contracts are lawful in all jurisdictions. Whether they are in a EULA or not. The Apple restriction is a post sale restriction on use of a purchased product. To allow that is to allow all manner of uncompetitive behaviours, and so all Western jurisdictions do not allow them. That's to say, you cannot impose them, and if someone signs a contract to that effect, you will not be able to sue them. On the other hand, the GPL license or contract contains nothing of the sort in it. So, open source advocates should want Apple to lose against Psystar, because they should not want post sale restrictions on use on any products including software, washing machines, cars or chisels. And because the unlawfulness of these restrictions has NO BEARING WHATEVER on the lawfulnes or enforceability of the GPL. Its the specific conditions that count. Its not if they are in a Eula, or are about software. |
| tracyanne Jul 19, 2008 4:28 AM EDT |
would you mind telling this to Dana Blankenhorn |
| tuppp Jul 19, 2008 12:42 PM EDT |
Alcibiades is absolutely correct, and it is somewhat amazing that most can't seem to differentiate between private software licenses and legal, government statutes. Both Apple's EULA and the GPL are private contracts, whereas copyright statutes are government laws. A private contract can contain a clause that is legally unenforceable or illegal. For instance, Apple could stipulate in their EULA that the end user has to jump off of a cliff if the user runs the software on Tuesdays. However, if one were to make 1000 copies of Apple's OSX and distribute the copies without permission from Apple, that person would be breaking copyright law. The person unlawfully distributing the 1000 OSX copies can be thrown into jail, whereas the person neglecting to jump off of the cliff can only be sued by Apple, probably unsuccessfully. In this case, the important difference between the Apple EULA and the GPL is that Apple's EULA tries to impose restrictions beyond those allowed by law, while the GPL merely grants extra rights, in addition to those allowed by copyright law. Apple EULA's attempts to restrict an individual end user's hardware choice, which does not involve copyright law and is not supported by any laws in most jurisdictions. In fact, some jurisdictions have laws that would prevent Apple from dictating the end user's hardware choice. On the other hand, the GPL *grants* extra freedoms for the modification and distribution of software. Under certain conditions, the GPL allows the right to modify and/or distribute the source code, and additionally allows unlimited copying and distribution of the unmodified source code (and resulting binaries), all at no charge. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!