| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Legality of terms of serviceLegality of terms of servicePosted Jan 11, 2012 15:15 UTC (Wed) by southey (subscriber, #9466)Parent article: The Nook Tablet and the GPL First, Barnes and Noble provides complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. Thus the tablet appears to boot until it realizes that it lacks that magically signature. So the GPL v2 requirements are addressed, just that you have to use a different bootloader (apparently the same sort of issue with UEFI). Due to the apparent legality of EULAs, the terms of service of using your device probably overrides certain other requirements like providing the necessary information to boot into an Barnes and Noble functional tablet. So those terms may override your right to possess that signature as well as any licensing terms (regardless of GPL version) owned by Barnes and Noble (presumably the signature-related stuff).
(Log in to post comments)
Legality of terms of service Posted Jan 12, 2012 3:49 UTC (Thu) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link]
So, are the terms of *purchase of the object* (which are generally those of the Uniform Commercial Code) strict enough to protect B&N from being charged with commercial fraud for selling an object that -- once I'm done modifying it the way I want, as is my right under First Sale -- no longer works *and they knew this in advance*?
Legality of terms of service Posted Jan 12, 2012 15:07 UTC (Thu) by southey (subscriber, #9466) [Link] Not a lawyer, but you cannot sell your hardware with software that you don't have a right to sell or distribute. That is essentially what I understood from Groklaw's coverage (apologies for any of my errors) of what Psystar wanted to do with Apple software. Also see Vernor v. AutoDesk that software is not protected by first sale.So if once I'm done modifying it the way I want means removal of software that you have no right to sell or distribute then there is no problem by you or them. If not, then I would think that they have a case against you if they wanted to.
Legality of terms of service Posted Jan 12, 2012 20:01 UTC (Thu) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link]
I wasn't clear; I'm sorry.
If B&N knows that if you modify the device -- in a way they are required to permit, by license -- that it will then be non-functional... *does B&N give enough formal notice of that to buyers, and does that notice protect them from being charged with fraud* under the Magnusson Moss act, or the UCC, or what have you? Because they are, effectively, selling that category of buyers a brick. And they know this in advance.
That was my question; sorry for burying the lede.
Legality of terms of service Posted Jan 15, 2012 23:02 UTC (Sun) by steffen780 (guest, #68142) [Link]
This varies by jurisdiction. AIUI the reason we have "System Builder" rather than "OEM" licenses in Germany is that some court decided that you can in fact sell software licenses you own. Typical how they try to claim "software==physical object" when someone copies it, but when someone sells it then suddenly they expect special treatment..
Legality of terms of service Posted Jan 19, 2012 12:07 UTC (Thu) by liron (subscriber, #8069) [Link]
Note that extra requirements via EULA, licenses or other contracts, are not alowed in the GPL v2:
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
|
|
||||||||||||