A recent ruling confirms the legality of software license agreements (or EULAs). While initially greeted with regret (by developers, not the big corporations that sell software) this may be a good thing for open source.
License agreements restrict various uses of software, including copying, distribution, transfer, resale, and renting. They can be very confining: some Microsoft licenses for Windows specify that if you sell the computer, the license for Windows is destroyed and the new owner must acquire a new license.
Putting aside the issues of first sale doctrine, practicality of enforcement, and fairness, let's look at the issue from the world of open source. Linux, Apache, Perl, Python, Ruby, GIMP, and other open source packages are distributed under open source licenses. The maintainers aren't worried about people copying their software.
If anything, strict enforcement of licenses may help open source. Let's take the example of the "Windows is good for only one owner" license. Without enforcement, I would sell an old PC to you, and leave Windows on the PC. You would get the PC and the Windows (and possibly other software) and start using it.
With strict compliance, the situation is different. I sell you the PC but I remove all software including Windows. You get a PC with no software. You now have a choice: what operating system and software to install? You might purchase Windows (excuse me, you might license Windows) and install it, or you might install Linux instead.
For older PCs, those which don't meet the requirements for Windows 7, you really have no choice. Microsoft has all but discontinued the distribution of Windows XP, so you can't (leagally) use any version of Windows. Your choice is Linux or nothing.
The enforcement of license agreements that impose restrictions on resale and transfer of software will increase the equilibrium towards open source software.
No comments:
Post a Comment