... so they admitted to the court that they willfully used the software without a license to do so?
To decide such a motion the court assumes that every fact alleged by the plaintiff is true, and then looks at each charge to see if all the necessary facts to support that charge are covered. If some charge is not covered, then that charge can be dismissed.
So what is happening here, it sounds like, is that the defendant is saying that plaintiff did not allege that defendant signed anything, and the defendant seems to think (for some reason I do not understand...) that you have to sign something in order to have a contract, and so wants the court to dismiss any charges that require there to be contract.
The court said that plaintiff has in fact alleged sufficient facts for there to be a contract, so denied the motion to dismiss.
I know, right? I'm really baffled that any lawyer would even try that argument. That's like, first or second week of first semester contract law right there.
A contract just requires an agreement between some parties. Signatures only matter to the extent that they serve as proof of an agreement. You can't go into court and say "yes, I agreed to the contract, but I never signed it." That's a losing argument.
You can, on the other hand, totally go into court and argue "Yes I signed the contract, but I never agreed to it!" That's obviously not an easy argument to make, and you'll need to give a pretty compelling argument if you want a shot at winning, but fundamentally, the signature is just evidence of an agreement, not some legal requirement.
So, clicking 'accept' on a EULA is solidly in a gray area. Everyone knows that no one reads the terms before clicking, so if the EULA has you signing away your first born, you can totally argue "yeah, I clicked the EULA, but I didn't agree to THAT" and probably win. On the other hand, clicking the EULA does mean that you're on notice that you've agreed to something. If the EULA is just the standard stuff that you'd expect to find in it, then a court is likely to enforce the terms.
What's funny is that Hancom is essentially arguing that shrink-wrap licenses (contracts) are unenforceable. Ghostscript was open sourced under the GNU GPL which states, in shrink-wrap fashion, that use of the software without an explicit commercial license binds the user to the GNU GPL. Integrated the software into their own closed-source software and distributing said closed-source software is unquestionable use.
At the same time, you can guarantee that Hancom would fully enforce their own shrink-wrap licenses - Terms of Use, Terms of Service, etc. - on others.
Not quite technically!
The way it works is: you have no permission by default under copyright. The only permission you have to copy is the GPL. If you obey it, fine. If not, you're just violating copyright like any other copyright violation.
This can be an important point: it's a license, not a contract.
It may be unfortunate that the judgement uses the word "contract", presumably because that's the word the defendant used.
On a tangential note, there's also a load of work to do from somebody to educate you wtf EFF is and why it doesn't care about the GPL and who actually does care ;)
FSF
A typical "EULA" attempts to reduce your rights, without any further consideration from you (you'll have already paid for it, etc). If you disagree, the authors like to claim that you are bound by their more restrictive terms anyway. That is what is legally dubious.
A copyleft license does the opposite: the software comes with an offer to grant you additional permissions should you choose to accept its terms. You have the option to decline, and nobody is claiming that your rights are in any way further restricted if you choose to decline.
Put another way, you are free to use GPL software without accepting the terms of the license. But if you don't accept the terms, then you violate copyright law every time you make copies of it.
For example you can't make a contract in which I just pay you $50 per year. But you can have a contract in which I pay you $50 per year and in exchange you deliver me a girl scout cookie on the 7th of November every year.
The court doesn't (usually) care whether the deal made is a good idea, $50 for a girl scout cookie seems like terrible value, but it _is_ an exchange of two things of value.
Because the GPL spells out what you're getting and what you're swapping for it, it will always satisfy this idea of consideration. In contrast very often "click through" or "shrinkwrap" licenses don't really do so.
Why not? If I own a chair, I have the right to use it. If I own a copy of the software (that I paid for in a store, for example), then there is nothing in law that says that I cannot use it. I have rights over what I own. Nothing restricts that.
Copyright law exists to protect software writers by providing them with a means to make money making software. This law restricts my ability to make copies. There is no law that restricts my ability to use what I own.
I would add that it seems pretty specious to argue that I bought a license when the license was not presented to me at the time I paid for the product and left the store, but I accept that this could be their contention.
(note: the period is part of the URL)
Additionally, GPL only grants you "additional freedoms" if you're willing to reciprocate. If you want to use it in a closed source work, it very much limits your freedoms. The phrase "permissive license" exist for a reason, and it explicitly excludes the GPL.
It's the copyright law which prevents you from using GPL software in closed source works, not the GPL. GPL doesn't care about proprietary software at all, leaving it at the mercy of status quo. It only grants some additional rights to users and developers of free software.
Status quo: You can use the software. You're not allowed to redistribute copies or modified versions of the software.
EULA: You may only use the software if you agree to additional terms. Usage rights are restricted.
GPL: You may redistribute copies as well as modified versions as long as distribution happens under the terms of the GPL. Distribution rights are granted.
As the story go, someone bought a mill shaft but the delivery was delayed and the customer sued the seller and wanted compensation for the delay. This in turn lead to a legal requirement to make the customer aware of limitations. When the US organization for trade (a name which is escaping me) made their recommendation based on the version of law which was "copied" over, they added that one way to do so could be to use all caps or by changing the color or font, which companies adapted by simply picking the first suggestion.
The distance of the original case of the mill shaft and some open source software thats public available on the Internet for free is quite a far one.
What the disclaimer is supposed to achieve is state that there was no contractual obligation to deliver a piece of working software. For software distributed free of charge, this might be viable, but I would find it rather surprising if such an obligation wasn't automatically implied to at least some degree by any commercial sale.
But this is above my pay grade as I'm not a legal professional or even amateur, for that matter.
Disclaimers are about what the buyer can except and have a right to after a transaction. The product in question is more or less irrelevant, through some laws in some places do consider a free gift to also be a transaction between consumer and seller but with a price of zero. This makes the law more complicated. For example, if a baker gives out free bread samples but that happens to be bad, the baker can still be held liable. However if I give a friend a home made cookie the law could easily treat the two cases in a very different way. As much with the law it depend on the situation and the details and the expectations of everyone involved.
This is in part why some open source project do not include disclaimers. They don't consider themselves to be in a consumer-seller relation with anyone and thus do not need to disclaim any consumer expectation which could occur if there were such relation. Some lawyers disagree with doing so because of the baker example above, through there is a lot of uncertainty and a lawyers job is to consider all possible bad outcomes even those that are unlikely to happen, or as it is to my knowledge in this case, never have happened to any open source developer in the world.
On what grounds do you have no right to use a copy of software you bought without obtaining an additional license from the vendor?
As for copying it's copyright, obviously, but I never understood what's the matter with merely using. IANAL but AFAIK in some EU countries it is recognized that there is no legal basis for EULAs and they officially are void, unless signed as a contract prior to the purchase, of course.
Not quite. There is no need to sign anything, what matters is if the EULA was included in the sale contract (so, the buyer was aware that the willingness of the seller to sell you the product depended on the buyer accepting those additional terms as part of the contract). On the other hand, if you do indeed sign an additional contract afterwards on your free will that limits your rights, that might very well be enforcable. But the point is that there is no legal necessity to sign such a contract in order to use the software that you have bought.
Yes, it doesn't have to be literally signed, but it needs to be an agreement made at the time of purchase. If I agree to buy Windows under the condition that I won't use it for the development of nuclear weapons, so be it.
But it's still not clear why I would need Microsoft's license just to use a copy of Windows I have already bought, sometimes even as part of a computer, which is what parent seemed to claim.
To use software you probably have to install it on your computer - this makes a copy of the software. Then when you run it you make another copy into your computer's memory, and additional copies in the the CPU's cache.
I don't agree with the above argument (I think fair use covers it), but I have heard it. It isn't hard to read the letter of the law and conclude the above is the correct interpretation. (you might need to see some money...)
I honestly do not know how to fix the letter of the law. There are too many special cases. If I have two computers can I install it on both? Can I install it for my family to use? When my computer fails can I install it on the replacement? The above are trick questions: I deliberately asked them to invite answers that imply I can install one copy of software on as many servers as I want for as many users as I want - this seems wrong.
It is... disappointing that modern courts have allowed the First Sale doctrine to be watered down so that today there's every chance you will buy something, paying good money, and then be confronted with new "terms" for how you may use the thing you purchased. But it's not in general clear that such an approach is legal.
If it does not include an EULA, are you not allowed to use it? Does the same hold for computer games with an EULA?
Or does the existence of an an EULA hold your rights hostage until you agree to it?
"This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade, be lent, resold, hired out, or otherwise disposed of without the publisher's consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published."
from https://books.google.com/books?id=v-yrLmQNRvsC&pg=PR4 , but there are many other examples.
Many publishers really didn't like used bookstores and libraries making a single book available to many people over time, replacing the covers as necessary due to wear instead of buying new copies of the book.
1) Books go out of print and they don't have anything to sell anymore.
2) A replacement book could cost more than a new cover. I bet libraries would be happy to return the old worn book and get a pristine one, possibly of the same edition, for the cost of fixing the old one.
That doesn't happen, maybe it's even an unprofitable business for publishers, so long live to the First Sale Doctrine.
Right. The language above was an attempt to force libraries to buy a brand new copy anyway, and make reselling used books more difficult. In case it isn't obvious, replacing covers is much more common, and gives excellent results, with hardcovers (look up book rebinding).
Also related is the practice of retailers "stripping" a paperback book of it's cover rather than returning it to the publisher. Publishers would therefore like it to be illegal to buy and sell books without covers, or with replacement covers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stripped_book
Also, does the seller have to reimburse you if you decline the license (and of course return the copy)?
So you pay for the copy but not for the license, and you got the license free if you paid for the copy, right? (But of course that license comes with a lot of restrictions, just like the GPL.)
But the important thing seems to be that the GPL binds distributors. It's a contract between developers and distributors. (Sure, it's a contract between anybody that acquires a copy.)
Is there a coherent legal overview of this?
As to your last question: yes there is, people have written dozens of book about it. Your local university probably has a bunch of them in their library. If you're asking about a website where you can read in a few paragraphs the complete legal context with definitive answers to questions about general cases (i.e., no 'it depends' allowed) - then no, such a thing does not exist. Look at it this way: if a novice programmer goes onto LKML and says 'hey guys, I want to write an OS, can someone point me to an overview' - then at best he'd be pointed to some high-level overview Wikipedia pages, but most likely, people would snicker and press 'delete' (well actually he'd probably receive a bunch of abuse on how he should get off the list, but that's specific to the example I chose...)
FWIW, I did read a bunch of book like the ones I mentioned above when I was writing a paper on a EULA-related topic during my law degree, and as a result I don't make any blanket statements about the topic any more.
Thanks, that's a completely satisfactory answer. (It's the Feynman-style "it's complicated, and any analogizing just makes it incorrect, thus making the analogy (or simile) useless" answer.)
And okay, they're are not separate things, but this sort of problem seems like what SCOTUS spends long minutes discussing in oral arguments. Because they are indeed separate things, one is a (physical or digital) copy and one is a grant of IP rights. At least't that's how I use the word. At least that's the piece of abstract thing that's necessary to make the copy non-infringing, right?
But, then, it comes down to good or bad faith of the seller. If the seller/vendor does not disclose the exact terms, but gives you the impression that after paying you you can use said copy for such and such purpose, that's seems to be 'false advertising'.
No. A user is not required to agree with GNU GPL license terms to merely install and use some software licensed under GNU GPL. GPL comes into scene only when some (re)distribution of the code/binary happens.
So, GNU GPL has not much to do with End User License Agreement because the end user never have to agree with GNU GPL unless he/she is going to add one or more link to the chain of users.
However, GPL still works in such jurisdictions since if you claim that you don't accept GPL then you're violating the copyright law by distributing without a licence to do so. General shrink-wrap licences can't use this logic because (in those jurisdictions?) using software or service doesn't require a licence, unlike copying.
"Post-purchase agreements" are not enforceable in many jurisdictions because they add terms that one side of the agreement did not agree to and many terms of service fall into the post purchase agreement category. It is hard to argue that open source licenses are "post-purchase agreement" because no purchase occurred.
“shrink-wrap license” is a term (that has been used in legal writing on the subject, though it doesn't originate as legal jargon) for a license agreement included within the packaging (which historically was I usually shrink-wrapped, preventing the a customer from reviewing the license text prior a to purchase) of software product that is purported to be a condition of use of the software and which purports to be accepted by use, opening the package, or purchasing the product.
(“Click-wrap” has similarly been used for similar licenses included electronically with software that purports to be accepted by clicking through something in the install process.)
> It is hard to argue that open source licenses are "post-purchase agreement" because no purchase occurred.
Purchase may or may not occur with open source licenses; it may be true that it rarely occurs, though the FSF continues to promote sale of Free software as a viable thing.
You're free to accept the offer, which then implies certain obligations described in the agreement.
You're also free not to accept the offer, which implies the default conditions set by law, i.e., copying and distribution is prohibited without explicit permission of the author(s). For example, anyone certainly can ignore the provisions of GPL and redistribute the software as closed source if they have obtained some other licence from all the authors.