Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   mcc (mcc@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 18-Jul-2024 04:48:30 JST mcc

   • halva(0)

   @halva The text of GPL3 itself says: "You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program". So while it is the thing that gives you the right to run the software, no I don't think it *is* a EULA.

   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (lxo@gnusocial.net)'s status on Thursday, 18-Jul-2024 04:48:28 JST Alexandre Oliva

     in reply to

     • Luis Villa
     the A in EULA stands for agreement, and the GPL doesn't require that. it's a unilateral grant of permissions, not necessarily an agreement.
   • Embed this notice
     Luis Villa (luis_in_brief@social.coop)'s status on Thursday, 18-Jul-2024 04:48:29 JST Luis Villa

     in reply to

     • Glyph
     • halva(0)

     @glyph @mcc @halva these are not concepts that are formally defined, FWIW. So a EULA is sort of… anything that says it is a EULA. And yes, GPL is a license, to end-users and/or distributors. So <shrug> yeah, it is a EULA?

   • Embed this notice
     Glyph (glyph@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 18-Jul-2024 04:48:30 JST Glyph

     in reply to

     • halva(0)

     @mcc @halva I think that, definitionally, it is one? As an end user you require a license to use copyrighted software, and the GPL is the one you get. Some EULAs require that you explicitly accept because they know they are out on thin ice as a contract of adhesion, and the GPL is just saying you don’t have to do that for the license to apply to you. But the explicit-acceptance thing is an extra thing that licenses add, it is not clear to me that the GPL really *needs* to say this, functionally?