Advertisement
Front, Kernel, Security, Distributions, Development. See your byline here on LWN.net.
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
free-software licenses vs. EULAsfree-software licenses vs. EULAsPosted Aug 15, 2008 2:42 UTC (Fri) by pizza (subscriber, #46)In reply to: free-software licenses vs. EULAs by stevenj Parent article: Why the JMRI decision matters
> Once you have legally bought the software at a store and brought it home, there's a reasonable argument that you already have the right to run the software (the "copying" required to load the software into memory notwithstanding). Hence you don't need any additional license, and you don't need to accept the EULA. Actually, under US law, this "incidental" copying necessary "as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program" is explicitly not a copyright infringement. (USC 17 Sec 117)
(Log in to post comments)
free-software licenses vs. EULAs Posted Aug 15, 2008 9:38 UTC (Fri) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link] Tell it to the court that found in favour of Blizzard over that World of Warcraft bot case. :(
free-software licenses vs. EULAs Posted Aug 15, 2008 12:54 UTC (Fri) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] The thing is, that WoW Bot case wasn't (arguably) covered by this, because the in-ram copy he made (to hack on?) wasn't "essential to the operation of the computer program". I'm not familiar with the technical details of the case, so I'm speculating more than I normally do. :)
|
|
||||||||||||