Fun with software licenses
Did you know that you're probably not allowed to make backups of your computer? It's true, if you believe in the legal fiction known as "End User License Agreements" (or EULAs), which are those annoyingly long contracts where you have to click "I Agree" before you're allowed to install some program or another.
For example, here's a snippet of the Adobe Integrated Runtime (AIR) End User License Agreement:
2.3 Backup Copy. You may make one backup copy of the Software, provided your backup copy is not installed or used on any computer.
Nice, huh? If you install this software, its EULA forbids you from making more than one backup copy. This is a deal-breaker for business which keep multiple backup archives from days, weeks, and months past. According to this agreement, you could hypothetically alter your corporate storage system to ignore each of the files that would be installed, but realistically no one would ever even attempt this.
This is just one more reason to be grateful that EULAs are almost universally believed to be legally unenforcable. However, unless you're willing to tell a jury that you don't think you're bound by such an agreement, remember that every piece of software with a similar license is a potential time bomb. Theoretically, you could be sued just for having it, even if you probably wouldn't be found liable.
Fans of commercial software often talk about the "impracticality" of Free or Open Source Software, but the alternatives are starting to look a lot worse.
Comments
"Even if you'd been correct,
"Even if you'd been correct, that would still make it illegal to make multiple backups of the computer you downloaded the installer onto."
No. No one has ever made such an assertion. You're twisting words, and the wrong ones. You are permitted one archival copy of the software media. Your system backups are expressly authorized by 17 USC 117.
"As far as I know, EULAs have been upheld in court one time."
Then your scope of knowledge is inadequate. There has never been a case ruling that EULAs are categorically invalid. Ever.
"Finally, you're completely wrong about Free Software licenses, which only grant rights and do not remove them."
That's what a license does. Since you start with zero rights, any license is a grant. Some are more narrow than others.
"Should the GPL be found invalid then distribution of software distributed under that license would still be copyrighted and controlled by its authors."
Nope, because it would have already been released. They would be seen as having granted an unlimited license to anyone who accessed the source. The GPL is the only thing permitting them to enforce the distribution restrictions. They would have conveyed a copy, and if your interpretation were correct, which thankfully it isn't, the original author would have no recourse against anyone who downloaded it, including if they decided to rewrite it and release it as a closed-source product.
"However, end users would still be able to use it as they wish."
End users aren't the problem.
Strike 2.
The Adobe license I linked to certainly did. Did you not read that part? To wit:
2.3 Backup Copy. You may make one backup copy of the Software, provided your backup copy is not installed or used on any computer.
And yet you accuse me of twisting words. :-) Perhaps EULAs have not been rejected as a whole, but neither have they generally been upheld, with the recent Blizzard case being the single notable example I'm aware of.
Your understanding of copyright is... challenged. By default, you have no right to distribute copyrighted software. The GPL grants you that right under certain conditions. Should the GPL be invalidated, we'd revert to the original scenario: you'd have no right to distribute the copyrighted software. The GPL is the only thing granting you that right. Your interpretation, while not novel, has little basis in law and seems to share little mindshare among interested parties.
Indeed. Proponents of singular and bizarre constructs such as EULAs are much more of a problem than end users.
"Did you know that you're
"Did you know that you're probably not allowed to make backups of your computer? It's true,"
No, it's not. Did you know that you're talking out of your ass?
Did you look at the definitions? No. You are permitted to make one backup copy of the installation media. The downloaded file or the disc.
Your non-usable hard drive backups are not what is covered.
No wonder you cluelessly believe "that EULAs are almost universally believed to be legally unenforcable"--when every single court that has ever addressed them has accepted the EULA as a valid construct. Every EULA ever stricken down was because of its *terms and provisions*, not because it was called a EULA.
Meaningless drivel. It's ignorance like yours that prevents any real progress from being made in convincing people to switch to free software--which ALSO relies on license agreements to function. If they're not enforceable, then Free and Open Source Software falls apart, too.
You're wrong
So "Software" refers to the contents of the media. You know - the software. Even if you'd been correct, that would still make it illegal to make multiple backups of the computer you downloaded the installer onto.
As far as I know, EULAs have been upheld in court one time: when Blizzard sued a company that sold software that interacted with Blizzard's games.
Finally, you're completely wrong about Free Software licenses, which only grant rights and do not remove them. For example, the GNU Public License grants unrestricted rights to end users, and give distributors distributors who meet certain conditions extra copying rights not typically seen in draconion EULAs. Should the GPL be found invalid then distribution of software distributed under that license would still be copyrighted and controlled by its authors. However, end users would still be able to use it as they wish.
Post new comment