Can usage of free software be restricted?

[Guido Heumann]

Eric Feliksik schrieb:
> http://www.ubuntulinux.org/legal reads:
> <quote>
> Use of Ubuntu software
> 
> Your use of any software obtained from this site is subject to the terms
> of any license agreement provided with the software. Some of these
> agreements incorporate the terms of the GPL or other open source
> licences. Please read these agreements before installing and using the
> software; by installing and using the software, you will have accepted
> the terms of the agreements.
> </quote>
> 
> I don't like this. It's not realistic to read those licenses for normal
> use. Ubuntu ships software with many different licenses, and  reading
> the license of software like Microsoft Windows is a burden, but reading
> all of the open source license (GPL, MPL, LGPL, APL, X11-license, etc.
> etc. etc.) is a lot of work. (Yes, I know, after installing windows you
> install Nero, Acrobat, etc. etc. - and of course nobody reads it's
> licenses).
> 
> I really do understand copyright is copyright, and must be respected...
> So why do I complain?
> 
> Because I'm in doubt about the necessity of the instruction to read and
> accept the licenses. What free-software licenses do you have to agree on
> in order to use the software the license covers? AFAIK at least the GPL
> does not restrict usage in any way; this means the GPL has to be
> accepted *only* if someone wants to redistribute the software. If the
> GPL is not accepted, there is no permission to redistribute the
> copyrighted work. When installing firefox the license has to be agreed
> on, but does the Mozilla-tri-license require that? If not, does any
> other license do so? If so, what must be agreed on, if right 0 of a free
> software program is the freedom to run the program for any purpose?
> 
> Thanks, for your time. I can be wrong about some things, so let me know.
> I hope to hear your feedback.
> 
> Eric

Hi Eric,

my first impulse was to say that the instructions to read the license
before installing are definitely "theoretical", but correct. Maybe
over-correct.

But, then I read the GPL text[1] and found this:

"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.

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?

Regards,
Guido

[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html