5 ms·

Either way because it's a License and not a Contract, by default you have no rights to use the software.

nitrogen 15y ago
I'm not aware of the current state of the law regarding software, but the interpretation of copyright that requires a license before the work can even be used for its intended purpose strikes me as unproductive and counterintuitive. What is the point of all the law surrounding authorized distribution if distribution doesn't implicitly grant the legitimate recipient the right to use the work (e.g. book, movie, or application) as it was designed to be used?
- jahewson 15y ago
  Yes "use" is a rather sticky word. Copyright of course covers making copies, but you have to copy software to install it, and as the copy is permanent (unlike say a digital photocopier's buffer) I suspect this is a realistic interpretation. If installing did not count as copying, then I could install one piece of software on an unlimited number of machines. On the other hand, perhaps the legal mechanism of EULAs is simply that the software won't let you use it until you click "I Agree" - but I would have thought there would be some legal basis where if you don't agree, you have no usage rights, hence it being a "license". It's murky.
  - Dylan16807 15y ago
    I would expect copying to your own computer would fall under fair use, but that copying to a hundred computers would require a hundred purchases. A license mechanism isn't explicitly needed here.
    - jahewson 15y ago
      Even installing on 2 computers would be copying 100% of the work, and harm the market for the original work, so I have a hard time seeing this as a fair use.
tomp 15y ago
You bought it, so you can do whatever you want with it. If you buy a CD, it's copyrighted, but you can still do whatever you want with it (unless what is limited by law).
- jahewson 15y ago
  Ah but that CD has a license in the sleeve... (see my above comment on copying).

I'm not aware of the current state of the law regarding software, but the interpretation of copyright that requires a license before the work can even be used for its intended purpose strikes me as unproductive and counterintuitive. What is the point of all the law surrounding authorized distribution if distribution doesn't implicitly grant the legitimate recipient the right to use the work (e.g. book, movie, or application) as it was designed to be used?

jahewson 15y ago
Yes "use" is a rather sticky word. Copyright of course covers making copies, but you have to copy software to install it, and as the copy is permanent (unlike say a digital photocopier's buffer) I suspect this is a realistic interpretation. If installing did not count as copying, then I could install one piece of software on an unlimited number of machines. On the other hand, perhaps the legal mechanism of EULAs is simply that the software won't let you use it until you click "I Agree" - but I would have thought there would be some legal basis where if you don't agree, you have no usage rights, hence it being a "license". It's murky.
- Dylan16807 15y ago
  I would expect copying to your own computer would fall under fair use, but that copying to a hundred computers would require a hundred purchases. A license mechanism isn't explicitly needed here.
  - jahewson 15y ago
    Even installing on 2 computers would be copying 100% of the work, and harm the market for the original work, so I have a hard time seeing this as a fair use.

tomp 15y ago

You bought it, so you can do whatever you want with it. If you buy a CD, it's copyrighted, but you can still do whatever you want with it (unless what is limited by law).

jahewson 15y ago
Ah but that CD has a license in the sleeve... (see my above comment on copying).