The legal basics of software licensing

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by ronjor, Mar 2, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,721
    Location:
    Texas
    http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/app-builder/the-legal-basics-of-software-licensing/2279
     
  2. NGRhodes

    NGRhodes Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Posts:
    2,331
    Location:
    West Yorkshire, UK
    Corrections:

    Copyright is only about how the software is distributed, copyright provides no restriction of use.

    Implied contracts, such as EULA are not automatically legally binding after the point of sale as the consumer is not able to exercise their right to review and negotiate their own terms before point of purchase.

    Open Source licences are NOT EULA, but distribution licences. They provide no restriction of use.

    Cheers, Nick
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2013
  3. acr1965

    acr1965 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Posts:
    4,954
    I'm no copyright guru, but I thought copyright required publication to enable copyright protection. The article sounds like if a person develops a program and never publishes a release that copyright protection is there...I'm not sure if that is correct or not, but something that needs looked into.

    The EULA language and contract info is different per country and in each state in the US. I don't believe a person is bound by the EULA's stated venue in case of misrepresentation or fraud.
     
  4. JeffreyCole

    JeffreyCole Developer

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    Posts:
    433
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#History

    'Under the Berne Convention, copyrights for creative works do not have to be asserted or declared, as they are automatically in force at creation: an author need not "register" or "apply for" a copyright in countries adhering to the Berne Convention.'
     
  5. acr1965

    acr1965 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Posts:
    4,954
    I just don't see how a person could assert "damages" in their request for relief (damages = $$) without notice short of some strict liability standard...

    ...say a person creates product A and never lets anyone know about it...then another person creates product B on the same concept halfway around the world and publishes product B...the person who created product A claims they were somehow damaged? Maybe they just assert equitable relief in that scenario? ...I am sure patent law comes into play somewhere here in the creation of products and copyright law may not have been properly used in this scenario or in the original author's...beats me, but something does not make any sense at all..
     
  6. JeffreyCole

    JeffreyCole Developer

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    Posts:
    433
    It isn't about someone simultaneously creating similar things or technology.

    it's someone taking the EXACT thing.

    like code on my computer I never distributed.

    it's still copyright infringement.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.