Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 04:56:10AM +0100, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:
>> This is very different from EULAs because with them the end user gets
>> *less* rights that normally given by copyright
>
> The rights normally given by copyright are virtually nil; you have the
> right to quote it for critical purposes and so on, but not the right
> to use it. A "EULA" generally grants you the right to use it.
Are you saying that if I buy a book, I don't have the right to read
it, sit on it, or otherwise use it without a license to do so from the
copyright holder?
If you aren't saying that, are you saying that if I purchase and
download some commercial software, I don't have the right to use it
without a license to do so from the copyright holder?
Where's the difference?
>> Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Click agree to accept this license and the lack of warranty.
>> > Click decline to not use, copy or distribute this software.
>>
>> The main problem is that that's simply not true - you _can_ use the
>> software without accepting the license[1].
>
> Ah. I see your confusion now. You really can't legally use the
> software without accepting the license, but the GPL imposes no
> conditions upon your acceptance of paragraph 0 which grants you usage
> rights. You could call this paragraph a "EULA", if you really wanted
> to, but there's little point in doing so.
That isn't the section 0 I'm looking at:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are
not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act
of running the Program is not restricted
That isn't a license to use the program, it's a note that copyright
law already gives you that right without a license.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Available for security-related employment.
