EULA and Modifed BSD

[Chris Travers]

On Dec 14, 2007 5:50 PM, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu>
wrote:

> Chris Travers wrote:
> > IANAL, but I think you have to be careful with that.  There was a case
> > involving Adobe a few years ago relating to the applicability of a EULA
> to
> > distribution of software.  Basically the EULA prevented unbundling, but
> the
> > guy who did it never installed the software, so he never agreed to the
> > EULA.  Hence the court found that he was not bound by it.  EULA's may
> > include lots of things, but as long as they are agreed upon through
> > installation they cannot be assume to bind distribution where the
> software
> > would not be installed first.
>
> I don't believe unbundling (a subset of first sale) is distribution
> under copyright law.  So this guy was free to ignore the EULA because he
> didn't need any special permission for the unbundling.


?????  How many things which are restricted under a typical EULA are
otherwise restricted by copyright law?

The right to run the software you purchase and connect as many other
computers to a network service from that software is not a matter of
copyright law at least in the US (at least by my plain language reading of
the statute, IANAL).

EULAs provide a framework for adherence contracts between the software
vendor and end user.  They do *not* generally address issues of distribution
because those are otherwise handled through other licenses.  Usually we
refer to EULAs as click-wrap or shrinkwrap contracts which limit the *use*
of the software.  As soon as you move away from that framework, the license
looks a lot less EULA-like.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20071214/88dde5fd/attachment.html>