linuxaudio.org

> again, I'm also not a lawyer, but I understand that the supposed

quoted text
> legal basis of those restrictions is based on the assertion that you,

> as a buyer of the software, do not actually buy the software but

> instead buy a licence to use it in particular ways defined by the

> license you buy.

>

> This is also the basis of open source licenses such as GPL, where it

> is carefully explained that the copyright owner(s) are NOT giving

> away ownership/copyright of the code, but instead give away a license

> 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.

_______________________________________________

Linux-audio-user mailing list

Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user