Penguin
Diff: SoftwareLicensing
EditPageHistoryDiffInfoLikePages

Differences between version 7 and predecessor to the previous major change of SoftwareLicensing.

Other diffs: Previous Revision, Previous Author, or view the Annotated Edit History

Newer page: version 7 Last edited on Tuesday, July 5, 2005 4:39:03 pm by DanielLawson Revert
Older page: version 6 Last edited on Tuesday, July 5, 2005 11:24:51 am by zcat(1) Revert
@@ -10,10 +10,13 @@
  
 Software can also be DualLicensed, commonly released free under the GPL, and commercially under a second license. 
  
 See Category:License for a list of licences. 
-  
+----  
 ''This entire page is crap. In the early days you did BUY software the same way you'd buy a book. You'd OWN that software outright, and have all the usual rights associated with ownership. The software author couldn't tell you what you were allowed to use the software for, or how long before it 'expired', or stop you letting friends use it when they came over, or stop you from selling it second-hand when you no longer needed it. Copyright still applied; you were not allowed to give or sell copies to your friends, but that was about all. Software Licensing was restricted to only a few very large and expensive programs which often had to be paid for a year at a time. '' 
  
 ''Microsoft's EULA is a contract, not a licence. It restricts what you'd normally be allowed to do if you owned the software, and you have to accept it because that's the only way you can legally get hold of the software. Effectively you never own the software, you only have restricted use of it under the terms set by Microsoft. Microsoft does not grant a licence (permission to make copies that would normally be forbidden by copyright) to any end user. '' 
  
 ''The GPL is a licence. It grants you permission to make copies of the software where such copying would normally be forbidden by copyright, but imposes some conditions on 'copying for redistribution' (and nothing else). Once you obtain a copy of the software you own it outright and may do anything you like with it other than what is prohibited by copyright law. The GPL has no effect on your use of the software. You do not need a licence to use software that you own, just as you don't need a licence to read a book after you buy it. -- zcat(1)'' 
+----  
+  
+''From what I've seen, there's no dispute that licence is the correct terminology. A licence grants the licensee special permission to do something with the property of the licenser. eg, use their software in certain circumstances. The MS EULA might be more restrictive than the GPL, but that's neither here nor there. If you don't like the licence, you can of course use other software - I do. Incidentally, you don't own GPL'd code. The original authors of all code blocks maintain their ownership. And you don't 'need a licence to read a book after you've read it' because you've __already__ paid the copyright fee and obtained permission. Read this article at [groklaw|http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851]. And, I'm sure, our next [meeting|MeetingTopics.2005-07-25] will hold some insight-- DanielLawson''