2 ms·

This is not correct. Those agreements are based on the idea that your license to use the copyrighted software is predicated on accepting a large number of condi

This is not correct. Those agreements are based on the idea that your license to use the copyrighted software is predicated on accepting a large number of conditions outside of copyright. Merely receiving a license-free piece of software (i.e. "all rights reserved") with no strings attached gives you a certain set of default rights (i.e. anything not in violation of copyright), such as to run it for any purpose. EULAs like a shrink-wrap agreement from Adobe, or the AGPL, then attempt to remove some of those rights. Though, sure, you can look at it from the point of view that in the absence of a license at all, nobody would've been able to distribute the software to you in the first place, and therefore you'd have had no rights as a result.

kazinator 6y ago
The doctrine under copyright law is that you have no right to have a copy of a work without the copyright holder's permission. From that basis, various forms of asshole on the face of this Earth, and their lawyers, have come up with various licenses that inject all sorts of behavioral conditions, far outside of the scope of copyright law, on the granting of a permission for you to have a copy. The idea is to turn the non-compliance with those conditions into copyright infringment. "Oh, you're violating clause 37? And still have a copy of the work? That's not allowed! You must comply, or else destroy the copy!"