5 ms·

Any free or open source software license does not need an EULA, and presenting it as such is antithetical to the entire idea of free software. You by definitio

by avar 10y ago

Any free or open source software license does not need an EULA, and presenting it as such is antithetical to the entire idea of free software. You by definition do not need to agree to any free software license before you use the software, you can vehemently disagree with it or completely ignore its existence. The license only exists to give you extra rights you didn't already have under standard copyright law (permission to distribute the program & modify it, under certain conditions). An EULA is a dubious legal hack used by proprietary software to deprive you of rights you'd have had anyway if not for the EULA, which is the exact opposite of how free software works. Edit: A lot of people are replying to this saying I'm incorrect. I'm not. A lot of free software licenses such as the GPL v2 spell out explicitly that they have nothing to do with anything except copying/distribution or modification: > Activities other than copying, distribution > and modification are not covered by this License; > they are outside its scope.[...] The GPL v3 says the same thing in different words, and as FigBug points out downthread the general FSF license FAQ makes this clear[1]. The Open Source definition also asserts this by proxy. Licenses aren't allowed to impose any restrictions on users that they wouldn't have anyway if they had no license to the software. Really, if you use free software you can just completely ignore all the licenses and you don't need to understand or have read any of them. This is one of the beautiful things about free software that separates it from EULA-using proprietary software. Of course you need to understand the licenses if you want to distribute the software in any way, but that entirely falls under the umbrella of activity you didn't have permission for without the license, it would be copyright infringement by default. This is also why free software organizations like the FSF would as a last resort sue someone for copyright infringement, not violating the GPL (but of course adhering to the GPL would bring them back into compliance). This is different from proprietary software companies which might sue you over violations of their own made up rules, which you supposedly agreed to via the EULA. The EULA is a hack to try to apply contract law to your use of the program, whereas free software & open source licenses purely piggy-back on copyright law. All those licenses are a way to say "here's stuff we allow you to do, which you didn't have legal permission to do anyway in the absence of this license, given certain conditions" (or no conditions for e.g. the WFTPL). 1. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#NoDistributionRequirements https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#NoDistributionR...

boomboomsubban 10y ago
>The license only exists to give you extra rights you didn't already have under standard copyright law (permission distribute the program, under certain conditions). The license are the terms you must agree with or else you are breaking copyright law, if you ignore it and do things covered in the license you can be sued.
uiri 10y ago
Both EULAs and FOSS licenses are license agreements. Presenting them in the same way is not disingenuous. The length of the GNU GPL rivals that of some EULAs. If you do not need to agree to a license before you use a piece of software, then EULAs would be invalid. You do need to agree to the license before you use the software. That the license grants permission to run the software for any purpose, usually with a disclaimer of liability, is irrelevant. If you do not comply with (for instance), the terms of the GNU GPLv2, then you no longer have a license to the software. That means that you must cease distributing and using that piece of software or be at risk of a lawsuit from the copyright holder.
- orangecat 10y ago
  If you do not need to agree to a license before you use a piece of software, then EULAs would be invalid. As they should be according to 17 USC 117: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 The standard dodge is that it refers to the "owner of a copy", while EULAs claim that you do not own a copy and are only "licensing" it. Which is BS in my opinion, but regardless the GPL specifically doesn't make that claim, so you don't need to accept anything to run GPL software.
- jkarneges 10y ago
  As others in this thread have said already, the GPL is written such that it does not need to be accepted in order to use the software. > If you do not need to agree to a license before you use a piece of software, then EULAs would be invalid. I believe the GPL was written the way it was, in order to remove any concern that it might not be enforceable. If someday the courts decide EULAs aren't enforceable, the GPL would still stand. Of course, the GPL also relies on standard copyright law forbidding modification and distribution without express permission, so if the courts ever change that then the GPL is in trouble since it's not an EULA. But that seems pretty unlikely.

by avar 10y ago

boomboomsubban 10y ago

>The license only exists to give you extra rights you didn't already have under standard copyright law (permission distribute the program, under certain conditions). The license are the terms you must agree with or else you are breaking copyright law, if you ignore it and do things covered in the license you can be sued.

uiri 10y ago

Both EULAs and FOSS licenses are license agreements. Presenting them in the same way is not disingenuous. The length of the GNU GPL rivals that of some EULAs. If you do not need to agree to a license before you use a piece of software, then EULAs would be invalid. You do need to agree to the license before you use the software. That the license grants permission to run the software for any purpose, usually with a disclaimer of liability, is irrelevant. If you do not comply with (for instance), the terms of the GNU GPLv2, then you no longer have a license to the software. That means that you must cease distributing and using that piece of software or be at risk of a lawsuit from the copyright holder.

orangecat 10y ago
If you do not need to agree to a license before you use a piece of software, then EULAs would be invalid. As they should be according to 17 USC 117: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 The standard dodge is that it refers to the "owner of a copy", while EULAs claim that you do not own a copy and are only "licensing" it. Which is BS in my opinion, but regardless the GPL specifically doesn't make that claim, so you don't need to accept anything to run GPL software.
jkarneges 10y ago
As others in this thread have said already, the GPL is written such that it does not need to be accepted in order to use the software. > If you do not need to agree to a license before you use a piece of software, then EULAs would be invalid. I believe the GPL was written the way it was, in order to remove any concern that it might not be enforceable. If someday the courts decide EULAs aren't enforceable, the GPL would still stand. Of course, the GPL also relies on standard copyright law forbidding modification and distribution without express permission, so if the courts ever change that then the GPL is in trouble since it's not an EULA. But that seems pretty unlikely.