Tweet
Originally posted by chithanh
View Post
-
And abiding the terms means you accept the license. And, yes, in a way is the GPL an EULA for programmers who wish to use the code (opposed to end-users who want to use the final product). -
Not really the same. Remember, in the absence of the GPL, programmers have absolutely no rights whatsoever when it comes to obtaining or using the code... it's defaulting copyright law, where if you're not the copyright holder, you're nobody. The GPL is a limited grant of extra rights, not a restriction.Originally posted by sdack View PostComment
-
An EULA is a End User License Agreement and in a sense are they the same: they are both licenses you first have to agree with. I then didn't bring EULAs into this. You'll have to take it up with chithanh when it's a problem for you. I however have no problems in reading software licenses as well as EULAs and in understanding them even when all one is being asked is to agree.Originally posted by Delgarde View PostComment
-
From the faq (bolding mine):Originally posted by aht0 View Post
Q: Seriously? It really looks like a change to the license.
A: No, the license of the kernel is still GPLv2, as before. The kernel developers are providing certain additional promises that they encourage users and adopters to rely on. And by having a specific acking process it is clear that those who ack are making commitments personally (and perhaps, if authorized, on behalf of the companies that employ them). There is nothing that says those commitments are somehow binding on anyone else. This is exactly what we have done in the past when some but not all kernel developers signed off on the driver statement.
Comment
-
-
You have gone into copyright law.Originally posted by sdack View Post
One problem GPL is a declared contract in USA law. Linux kernel is hosted in the USA.
The type of contract GPL is you have agreed to it as soon as you use the product.
EULA has a lot more wiggle room due to conditionally demanding payments in a lot of cases. EULA ends up under copyright law in a lot of cases because you have to value the item being acquired.
No such thing as a free lunch. GPL not changing you cash for it usage you should be expecting to have to do something in return.
1) You can think of GPL as apple tree with a sign you can have a apple if you rake the leaves. Yes that example would be a legally binding contract of a particular form.
2) EULA same example is 20 cents for a apple sign near the same tree that may or may not be binding because you might have a problem giving the person the 20 cents or working if the sign applies to the tree. Yes this example you have end up in property law disputing over ownership just like you end up in copyright law.
The gpl example using apple has a problem you can legally perform your requirements by yourself at minimal cost. You have to think about the test this way if you can carry out what is mandated in the contract without breaking laws with just the shirt on your back nothing else be very worried about its enforceability as in many cases you will not have other sections of law to use to say the contract does not apply so be absolutely stuck to its terms.
Now copyright says to change copyright you have to have all parties agree. That GPL is contract and does not contain anything that takes you into copyright law. To change a contract on something as long as you don't remove any terms or break any of the existing and only add terms clarification its agreement between supplier and receiver only and is enforceable from then on.
So this case describing what will happen if the terms of GPL are breached and how you should handle those cases would be classed as clarification and would not require agreement of all parties as long as GPL is classed as a Contract not limited by Copyright Law.
So GPL being a contract really does change the rules. The point of agreement on Contract GPL is way sooner than if it was copyright and method of agreement is automatic with no dispute room. Worst part about the type of contract GPL is happen to be that you should have expected to pay something so even if you have not read the GPL it still 100 percent applies. Presuming a lunch is free without checking everything out can be legally fatal.
Changing from GPLv2 to GPLv3 that would require terms changes that will require agreements from all parties by prescribed ways contract law in fact covers how to-do this if you cannot find everyone. Yes this includes placing public advertisements and if people do not respond in a particular time frame their answer can be classed as for it. So a lot harder process but not impossible.
Lot of the people are forgetting GPL is contract now and still fall back to when GPL was presumed copyright and not contract.Comment
-
There is no one singular EULA. There are many. Don't make assumptions on what these all may or may not entail. Again, learn to direct your argument on EULAs towards the person who brought it in to the discussion or simply ignore it altogether. I honestly don't care for a wall of text where you fail right at the start, don't realize it and then end up with a rant comparing some imagined EULA with the real GPL.Originally posted by oiaohm View PostLast edited by sdack; 17 October 2017, 08:59 AM.Comment
-
Originally posted by sdack View Post
When you are in side USA law using the term EULA binds you to particular consumer protection laws, copyright laws and other laws. Also you find in lots of countries you have tripped equal laws just using the term EULA as you are now providing something to a consumer. Due to EULA tripping over all these different laws a EULA may be totally not enforceable because its broken one of them.
Be warned this is a domino effect. Contract trips consumer protection then to prove right to provide product to consumer that trips copyright law and so and so and so.
GPL is fairly much a fee free inverse Non Disclosure Agreement that is the kind of law its in. Far less legal restrictions on NDA and GPL than what are on EULA so the terms in NDA and GPL are more enforceable less likely to have any means to cancel a term.
There is such thing as a generic number of laws that will be involved when you use anything called a EULA. Yes you are right there is no one singular EULA but there is a bundle of laws that apply to every single EULA in existence that don't apply to GPL in the USA system any more. With more rulings it might turn out that laws don't apply to GPL in other countries as well.
sdack the term EULA should not be used with GPL due to them being in two very different legal domains in the USA now. NDA are used between different parties involved in devleoper to share internal code and other items under agreed conditions. GPL is just a NDA with everyone being a possible member just like NDA you only have right to use what the GPL covers as long as you stick to the terms of GPL.Comment
-
sdack it was because you used reply. If the post was not for me you did not need to use the reply option. Reply goes in the my messages pile so you sent me a message. You can go read the USA court ruling I referenced earlier so its not what I think about EULA vs GPL it in fact what a USA judge said its in the transcript because legal council attempted to use what a EULA was to limit GPLOriginally posted by sdack View PostComment
Comment