SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
So you thought you bought some software
At the heart of the computer industry are some very big lies, and some of them are especially iniquitous. One is about commercial software.
[...] Anyone who chooses to use free and open source software on their desktop regularly gets asked why. Why bother? Isn't it more work? Isn't the pro-grade gear commercial? Isn't it worth buying the good stuff? Windows is the industry standard, isn't it simply less work to go with the flow?
[...] The practical upshot of which is that most of the time, the commercial stuff isn't significantly better. No, it isn't less hassle. Mostly, it's more hassle, but if you're used to the nuisances you don't notice them. If the free software experience was really worse, most of us wouldn't do it.
[...] Anyone who chooses to use free and open source software on their desktop regularly gets asked why. Why bother? Isn't it more work? Isn't the pro-grade gear commercial? Isn't it worth buying the good stuff? Windows is the industry standard, isn't it simply less work to go with the flow?
[...] The reason that it's not better to buy software is simple, but it's a lie. A lie at the heart of the entire computer industry, but nonetheless a lie that's very hard to see – "for the same reason that people in Trafalgar Square can't see England," to quote a good book.
It isn't better to buy commercial software because you can't buy software.
It is not possible for you to own paid-for, commercial software. You can't buy it. You probably think that you have bought lots, but you haven't. All you really bought is a lie.
[...] All you can buy is licenses. Serial numbers or activation keys or maybe even hardware dongles. Strange abstract entities that only really exist in lawyers' minds, which claim to permit you to use someone else's software.
As someone who started installing gcc in the 80's, I use more open source packages than closed source. The only "bugs" they have tend to be compatibility issues. As in, $GiantCorp releases a new version of $PopularProgram and suddenly the Open Source version can't open the new save files.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by mcgrew on Thursday October 06 2022, @04:38PM (5 children)
A license is merely a contract. Copyright law treats computer programs like books and music, which is where the license comes in. When you buy a novel, you're only buying the paper and ink, not the novel. However, copyright isn't about copying, it's about publishing.
Software needs a license because copying that book or record is completely legal, has never been outlawed in the US, and in fact the Home Recording Act of 1978 specifically legalizes copying, or the Betamax would have been illegal; the MAFIAA took Sony to court and lost.
I'm no lawyer, but I don't see how a shrink wrap license is even legal. If you want me to enter into a contract, give me paper to sign BEFORE you take my money!
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Thursday October 06 2022, @07:29PM (4 children)
My understanding is that a License means Permission. NOT a contract. Now there may be a contract in order to get a License as part of the consideration of that contract.
The word license means permission.
Dog license
Fishing license
Marriage license (why don't these expire if you don't renew them? Like a dog license.)
Hunting license
Gun licenseDriver license
License to kill
Is God's grace a license to sin? etc
It makes sense that the word License is conflated with a Contract because they so often are twisted together like a candy cane. But you can be given a license without a contract or consideration. And you can have a contract that involves no license.
If you think a fertilized egg is a child but an immigrant child is not, please don't pretend your concerns are religious
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday October 07 2022, @02:38AM
My nutshell definition: a "license" is limited permission (that is, temporary immunity from prosecution) to possess or perform what would otherwise be illegal.
Funny list. :)
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday October 11 2022, @05:40PM (2 children)
Yes, the word license means permission. As far as a software license is concerned, no license is needed unless you have signed a contract agreeing to the terms of that license. Copyright law doesn't say I can't copy that program, it says I can't PUBLISH it. It's legal to copy that CD unless it's copy-protected (DMCA) and give it away, but not sell it or put it on the internet, that's publishing.
If I go to Best Buy or Walmart and buy boxed software, there is no contract, thus no license. They will attempt to tell you that you need permission to use what you just paid for, but it's no more true than the FBI warnings on VCR tapes that claimed copying was a felony with prison time, when no law had been passed outlawing copying. No law has been passed outlawing their lies, either, as the 1st amendment prohibits such a law.
Now, downloaded music, games, software, etc. is a different story. Good luck getting a copy without clicking "I agree".
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday October 12 2022, @02:46PM (1 child)
For software, a license is required by law, or you are violating Copyright law. The software is copyrighted. Someone owns that copyright. You have no rights to use it without a copyright license. Sometimes, such a license is free. Sometimes you have to pay for a license with an implied or expressly written contract.
A copyright license is your defense against a lawsuit that you are violating copyright by using the software. YOU are the one who waves the license in court saying I have a license from the copyright owner. (Contract or no is irrelevant how you got the license.)
If you think a fertilized egg is a child but an immigrant child is not, please don't pretend your concerns are religious
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mcgrew on Wednesday October 12 2022, @03:38PM
You're speaking from ignorance. Copyright is not about copying any more than Right To Work laws give you a right to work. Copyright is about publishing, not copying, and in fact although recording songs from the radio was never outlawed (this is America, where what isn't forbidden is legal, unlike Russia, where nothing not specifically legalized is legal), they passed the Home Recording Act. Were it not for that act, the MPAA would have killed the Betamax in its infancy and there would have been no VCRs.
Now, the DMCA says that if a work is "copy protected" it's illegal to copy it. How would you "copy-protect" a piece of software whose only purpose is to be installed on a computer? You can't. Hence, the contract.
But there were contracts even before the DMCA, just because copyright doesn't stop you from copying, just publishing, so the only way to get a copy of that program was to sign a contract. A paper contract with an ink signature, since electronic signatures didn't exist. It continued past the mainframe era into the PC era, where the toothless "shrink wrap contract" was born. That contract is not valid, and you can't point to a single court case where one was upheld. It's only widespread ignorance that gives that "contract" any force at all.
I registered my first copyright in 1983, for software that ran on hardware that hasn't existed for decades, but its copyright is in force until 95 years after I die. Before the Bono Act (AKA "Steamboat Willie Preservation Act") that copyright would have expired 19 years ago. That law badly needs to be repealed.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience