4 ms·

Excellent justification for software to become subscription based (you are granted perpetual license to the software "as is" when installed, and for a nominal f

Excellent justification for software to become subscription based (you are granted perpetual license to the software "as is" when installed, and for a nominal fee per month you get updates). If I buy a bundle (Windows and Office installed OEM) can I split the products and resell without new hardware? I ask because if the license as written was to only be distributed with new hardware, then reseller channel pricing may go out the window. Also, if I can ignore the license terms, what does that do to GPL?

doctorwho 14y ago
Agreed. When I set my price I assume users will learn more about the software over time and my support costs will decrease rather than increase. If someone resells their license they are basically creating a new user and I have to support them the same as if they bought directly from me? No thanks.
- alexqgb 14y ago
  That assumes you sell software and service as a package. Why not decouple them and take the opportunity to create a new service relationship? Even better, develop the software on the assumption that it will be resold and create a "secondary operator" install procedure that transfers the service relation to the new owner. Instead of waiting for them to call you, you have real-time information about how your software is changing hands in the market. I recognize that the effort may be non-trivial. At the same time, if the law is opening a secondary market - and it turns out to be significant - wouldn't that approach allow you to tap it?
  - sageikosa 14y ago
    Yup. I see disruptive opportunity, but I hate to see it driven as a reaction to a court judgment. However, many game and business software vendors have been heading this way anyway.
papercrane 14y ago
> Also, if I can ignore the license terms, what does that do to GPL? I don't think it means anything for the GPL. If you really wanted to I suppose you could transfer your license to someone else, but since the GPL lets you relicense under the GPL anyways there really isn't any change.
- sageikosa 14y ago
  Not that I think there is any practical impact, but could I resell just the part of a GPL distribution that did not include the source code? If so, what license does that resold portion now fall under? Doubtless, getting a hold of the original GPL distribution should be relatively trivial, but suppose the code was tweaked and not resold? Now that may seem unlikely, but suppose a vendor added and tweaked some stuff, sold it under GPL to a "straw" reseller, who then proceeded to strip the license terms and resell without the source code? I am not a big GPL/Open Source guy, but since Copyleft is derived from Copyright (from which software license arise) an attack on one is an attack on all... My real issue is that while the EU court is going about invalidating licenses (regardless of their intent, and whether or not their intent is "good") unforeseen consequences may ensue. Disclaimer: I am no legal expert.
  - papercrane 14y ago
    I don't think this ruling says 'you can ignore the license terms entirely.' In the article they said it wouldn't be legal to buy a license for five copies use four and then separately sell the fourth. You can't 'split' the license, so attempting split the GPL'd software into the source component and binary component would continue to be disallowed. I think a better way to think about this is that the court is saying that the non-transferable clauses in software licenses are unenforceable, but the rest of the terms can be enforced. The court isn't going about invalidating licenses, they're regulating contracts, one of the fundamental roles of courts.
    - sageikosa 14y ago
      So the court wouldn't allow me to sell piecemeal something I own (assuming I purchased) because a license says I have to distribute it with other things? Maybe, maybe not. As far as the required permissive transferability of licenses goes, what parts of the license terms will the new purchaser have to meet? Since some software is sold at different prices (or has different features) to different organizations and locations through primary channels, what restrictions will apply? Can educational copies only be resold to educational institutions? Can volume OEMs only resell to OEMs? Since a license is a grant of use, it implies that a grant given to one can now be transferred to someone else as long as the original gives up the privileges, but without the grantor having a say. Since the license also usually spells out what the grantor grants, it forces the grantor into a new relationship. It comes down to treating a license as a product, rather than a license; there will be impact, perhaps in how licenses are written in the future so as to have grantors disallow things, or require continuing payment for updates and support (my original contention on subscription software).
PeterisP 14y ago
"ignoring licence terms" is a basic, common thing that's relevant to much of agreements, especially in EU. Law text trumps agreement text. Have a statement in an agreement that sells you in slavery? Not valid. Have a statement in an agreement that waives your consumer rights, warranty, etc? Not valid. Have a statement in an agreement that says "I may change terms of agreement w/o notice"? Not valid. Have a statement in an agreement that says "all disputes will be resolved in an arbitration instance that I control" ? For consumer contracts, not valid. It doesn't matter that you read them, understand them, signed them - such terms are just as binding as an agreement that sells your soul. All the legislators and courts understand that otherwise the intended limits will just be circumvented by companies adding disclaimers to their standard agreement templates - so the law (at least in EU) tends to be quite strict that the restrictions apply no matter what was in that boilerplate legal agreement.
rmc 14y ago
if I can ignore the license terms, what does that do to GPL? The GPL is not an EULA-type licence. It's a copyright licence. It is not a contract that you must sign/click "I Agree" which goes above and beyond copyright law, it is only copyright law. You can no more opt out of the GPL, than you can ignore copyright law.

doctorwho 14y ago

Agreed. When I set my price I assume users will learn more about the software over time and my support costs will decrease rather than increase. If someone resells their license they are basically creating a new user and I have to support them the same as if they bought directly from me? No thanks.

alexqgb 14y ago
That assumes you sell software and service as a package. Why not decouple them and take the opportunity to create a new service relationship? Even better, develop the software on the assumption that it will be resold and create a "secondary operator" install procedure that transfers the service relation to the new owner. Instead of waiting for them to call you, you have real-time information about how your software is changing hands in the market. I recognize that the effort may be non-trivial. At the same time, if the law is opening a secondary market - and it turns out to be significant - wouldn't that approach allow you to tap it?
- sageikosa 14y ago
  Yup. I see disruptive opportunity, but I hate to see it driven as a reaction to a court judgment. However, many game and business software vendors have been heading this way anyway.

papercrane 14y ago

> Also, if I can ignore the license terms, what does that do to GPL? I don't think it means anything for the GPL. If you really wanted to I suppose you could transfer your license to someone else, but since the GPL lets you relicense under the GPL anyways there really isn't any change.

sageikosa 14y ago
Not that I think there is any practical impact, but could I resell just the part of a GPL distribution that did not include the source code? If so, what license does that resold portion now fall under? Doubtless, getting a hold of the original GPL distribution should be relatively trivial, but suppose the code was tweaked and not resold? Now that may seem unlikely, but suppose a vendor added and tweaked some stuff, sold it under GPL to a "straw" reseller, who then proceeded to strip the license terms and resell without the source code? I am not a big GPL/Open Source guy, but since Copyleft is derived from Copyright (from which software license arise) an attack on one is an attack on all... My real issue is that while the EU court is going about invalidating licenses (regardless of their intent, and whether or not their intent is "good") unforeseen consequences may ensue. Disclaimer: I am no legal expert.
- papercrane 14y ago
  I don't think this ruling says 'you can ignore the license terms entirely.' In the article they said it wouldn't be legal to buy a license for five copies use four and then separately sell the fourth. You can't 'split' the license, so attempting split the GPL'd software into the source component and binary component would continue to be disallowed. I think a better way to think about this is that the court is saying that the non-transferable clauses in software licenses are unenforceable, but the rest of the terms can be enforced. The court isn't going about invalidating licenses, they're regulating contracts, one of the fundamental roles of courts.
  - sageikosa 14y ago
    So the court wouldn't allow me to sell piecemeal something I own (assuming I purchased) because a license says I have to distribute it with other things? Maybe, maybe not. As far as the required permissive transferability of licenses goes, what parts of the license terms will the new purchaser have to meet? Since some software is sold at different prices (or has different features) to different organizations and locations through primary channels, what restrictions will apply? Can educational copies only be resold to educational institutions? Can volume OEMs only resell to OEMs? Since a license is a grant of use, it implies that a grant given to one can now be transferred to someone else as long as the original gives up the privileges, but without the grantor having a say. Since the license also usually spells out what the grantor grants, it forces the grantor into a new relationship. It comes down to treating a license as a product, rather than a license; there will be impact, perhaps in how licenses are written in the future so as to have grantors disallow things, or require continuing payment for updates and support (my original contention on subscription software).

PeterisP 14y ago

"ignoring licence terms" is a basic, common thing that's relevant to much of agreements, especially in EU. Law text trumps agreement text. Have a statement in an agreement that sells you in slavery? Not valid. Have a statement in an agreement that waives your consumer rights, warranty, etc? Not valid. Have a statement in an agreement that says "I may change terms of agreement w/o notice"? Not valid. Have a statement in an agreement that says "all disputes will be resolved in an arbitration instance that I control" ? For consumer contracts, not valid. It doesn't matter that you read them, understand them, signed them - such terms are just as binding as an agreement that sells your soul. All the legislators and courts understand that otherwise the intended limits will just be circumvented by companies adding disclaimers to their standard agreement templates - so the law (at least in EU) tends to be quite strict that the restrictions apply no matter what was in that boilerplate legal agreement.

rmc 14y ago

if I can ignore the license terms, what does that do to GPL? The GPL is not an EULA-type licence. It's a copyright licence. It is not a contract that you must sign/click "I Agree" which goes above and beyond copyright law, it is only copyright law. You can no more opt out of the GPL, than you can ignore copyright law.