--- Guido Heumann <listguido@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Eric Feliksik schrieb:
> > [snip]
>
> "4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
> except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise
> to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will
> automatically terminate your rights under this License."
>
> "5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
> signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
> distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
> prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
> modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
> Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all
> its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the
> Program or works based on it."
>
> So, is installing considered "copying"? If yes, 4. should apply and you
> are bound to the license. If not, 5. says you don't need to agree to it.
By copying, they mean if you distribute the GPL'd sofware, you are
bound by its licensing requirements. Ubuntu has distributed GPL'd
software to you by allowing you to download it from their site (or
by mailing you a CD). *They* are bound to the licensing requrements
of the software they are distributing.
*You* (the Ubuntu user) only need to accept the terms of the GNU GPL
if you want to further distribute the GPL'd software that you
downloaded. If you're just downloading and using it, there's nothing
to agree to. You just use it. The GPL says nothing about how you
may *use* GPL'd software.
That said, regarding item 5 you have quoted above: it
says you're not supposed to modify the GPL'd software -- but that
must be out of context; of course you may modify it into anything
you want without telling anyone or giving away any source. It's only
when you *distribute* it that you have to also provide the source
(and you're not required to distribute your modified program if
you don't want to).
As for other licenses used for other various pieces of Ubuntu --
depends on the license.
> I wonder if it makes a difference that you already _know_ its free
> software (because it's ubuntu :-) ) without reading any license. If it
> was about a piece of proprietary software, the "default" law situation
> would not allow installing or running without permission. But in this
> case (and assuming installing is not "copying"), do you actually have to
> make sure thats it's free (by reading the licenses), or is it enough to
> trust in your knowledge about the free-ness of ubuntu/debian?
Presumably, the Ubuntu folks have already gone through and cherry-picked
the free software they want for their distro. They have, hopefully (and
very likely) not included any software with any sort of onerous EULA. :)
---J
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
|
