24 Nov
2008
24 Nov
'08
3:15 a.m.
On 24 Nov 2008, at 2:36 PM, Justin Smith wrote:
you have a good point here, and it is a very important difference
With the GPL you are prohibited from distributing (or rather
'conveying' in the new GPLv3 terminology) the software unless you
accept and abide by the terms of the license, the license also
explicitly allows the use of the software (without distributing it)
in any manner you wish. With a typical EULA you are very restricted
in the ways you can use the software, and often not allowed to
distribute it at all.
My point is that with GPL software it is crucial to the legal
effectiveness of the license that copyright is claimed and retained
by the authors (or delegated to some trusted body) and that the
license gives a very clear set of conditions under which the software
can be used and distributed. This form of license is, in my opinion,
a very powerful force in spreading free software. It is much more
restrictive than some of the other free software licenses around, and
by being restrictive it tries to ensure that the work done by the
contributors remains open and accessible in the future.
I am sure many GPL supporters would rather see a different legal
system, in which it was easier to keep these things free and open,
but this license tries to provide a strong means of ensuring this
freedom using existing copyright laws, and it has been very effective
so far. Software patents remain a great threat to free and open
software.
simon
for anyone to
use it (and in the case of GPL modify and redistribute
it) if AND ONLY IF they accept and abide by the terms of that
license.
One nitpick: the GPL is not a license for use, it is a license for
modification and distribution. They assume that no one needs a license
to use software, and you can use GPL software that is legally
acquired, even while refusing or ignoring the terms of the license,
but distributing copies without following the terms of their license
is a copyright violation ("piracy").
I would say that calling GPL a EULA is a severe disservice to what the
GPL represents. It does not constrain or restrict the actions of any
user who does not distribute or modify the software, two things you
cannot even do without a license or agreement giving you that right.