From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1SOMgT-0006s6-PA for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 29 Apr 2012 05:28:33 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7389AE067D; Sun, 29 Apr 2012 05:28:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35B92E066E for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2012 05:27:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0CC71B4004 for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2012 05:27:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.505 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.505 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.593, BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dNRCBNA5ay1f for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2012 05:27:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E7D11B4003 for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2012 05:27:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SOMfG-0003iR-QL for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sun, 29 Apr 2012 07:27:18 +0200 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2012 07:27:18 +0200 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2012 07:27:18 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: New license: yEd Software License Agreement Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 05:27:08 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <1335519028-sup-4124@raeviah> <1335526185-sup-4610@raeviah> <1335534186-sup-3638@raeviah> <20120427143405.GA20829@linux1> <1335538634-sup-7655@raeviah> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.136 (I'm far too busy being delicious; GIT 187e40f /st/portage/src/egit-src/pan2) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 898a1abc-e08a-4e0d-84ba-a3feba270d19 X-Archives-Hash: 0c558f1bd421e757a7d33e61492e49bd Alec Warner posted on Sat, 28 Apr 2012 11:53:03 -0700 as excerpted: > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Rich Freeman wrote= : >> I'd argue that it is impossible to "accept a license" in the >> first place. =C2=A0It is possible to agree to a contract if there is >> consideration on both sides and a meeting of the minds. >=20 > That doesn't mean you didn't / cannot accept, merely that some (all?) > provisions are likely unenforceable in a court of law. I don't think > EULAs have been ruled illegal yet. >=20 >> Copyright says you can't copy something. =C2=A0A license says you migh= t be >> able to. =C2=A0You don't have to "accept" a license to benefit it. =C2= =A0A >> license does not restrict what a user can do, it restricts what the >> person issuing the license can do (I can't sue you for redistributing >> my code if I licensed it to you under the GPL). =C2=A0Some licenses ar= e >> conditional - I only limit my own ability to sue you if you give peopl= e >> a copy of the source for any binary you give them, and if you don't do >> that I am now free to sue you. >=20 > Have you read the yEd license? I mean it does restrict what users can > do: > "The Software may not be used as part of an automated process. The > Licensee may not reverse engineer, disassemble, decompile, or unjar > the Software, or otherwise attempt to derive the source code of the > Software." >=20 > How is that not restricting what the end user can do? I believe he's viewing it in the context many explanations of the the GPL= =20 take pains to explain, namely: Since copyright law prohibits copying (and in some cases, reading into=20 computer memory for purposes of execution has been held to be copying in=20 the context of copyright as well!!) without permission in the first=20 place, it is as rich0 says, COPYRIGHT law that default-forbids doing=20 anything at all with that string of binary data that happens to form the=20 software. As rich0 further points out, licenses modify that default-no state to=20 allow the user some privileges they'd otherwise be denied by copyright=20 law. Many of them, including the GNU General Public License (GPL) and=20 the yEd license, do so conditionally. They allow the privileges IF AND=20 ONLY IF certain conditions are met. In the case of the GPL, these conditions, only apply to distributors,=20 mere end-users are free and clear of all such conditions as long as they=20 don't redistribute to others. Further, the conditions on distributors=20 are designed to ensure that end users of any derived programs get the=20 same rights from the folks that distribute it to them. In the case of most EULAs including the yEd license, by contrast,=20 distribution is simply reserved as a right to the owning company=20 (separate agreements are needed for distribution rights), and permission=20 to copy and use the work under copyright is granted to the end-user only=20 under rather severe conditions. But from the viewpoint of copyright,=20 it's simply an agreement by the owner to give you permission to copy and=20 use under certain stated conditions, thus limiting their right to sue,=20 but only to the extent that you're in compliance with the (in the case of= =20 most EULAs, conditional to an extreme) license (which is itself limited=20 by laws that grant various "fair use" rights that differ by jurisdiction)= . Thus, by this view, a EULA isn't limiting to the user, because all it's=20 doing is granting (perhaps conditional) rights that would otherwise be=20 reserved to the copyright owner only, under copyright law. Someone can=20 thus choose not to be subject to the license, or simply to ignore it=20 entirely. That's fine as long as they aren't doing something that=20 copyright says they can be sued for. But if they are doing something=20 copyright says they could be sued for, and they draw the attention of the= =20 owner and/or their legal representatives, then to the extent that the=20 license allows it, it's in their interest to claim the legal coverage of=20 the license to prevent being sued by that owner/owner-representative. Which is what makes relatively liberal licenses such as the GPL so=20 strong. Since they allow so much, with relatively light conditions, it's= =20 very strongly in the interest of parties who might otherwise be sued to=20 comply with the GPL instead. With rather more restrictive EULAs, not so=20 much, since the EULA has such strict conditions. In that case, it's far=20 harder to comply with and far more likely that a copyright violator will=20 be violating the EULA's conditions as well, so claiming the protections=20 of the license doesn't tend to help as much, except to the extent that=20 there really is a disagreement about the conditions of said license. --=20 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman