[rlpb]

> ...which otherwise you don't have.

Why not? If I own a chair, I have the right to use it. If I own a copy of the software (that I paid for in a store, for example), then there is nothing in law that says that I cannot use it. I have rights over what I own. Nothing restricts that.

Copyright law exists to protect software writers by providing them with a means to make money making software. This law restricts my ability to make copies. There is no law that restricts my ability to use what I own.

[emodendroket]

Well obviously their contention is that you're buying a license to use the software and not the software itself. You're free to disagree but it's internally consistent.

[sqeaky]

They can disagree all they want, but it is on them to prove that I agreed to buy a license, when I am physically holding something I bought. I didn't have to sign a contract for it. Adding terms after the purchase makes it a post-purchase agreement and that is unenforceable in most western jurisdictions.

[emodendroket]

Somebody should inform all the companies selling enterprise software whose entire model depends on selling seats, then.

[sqeaky]

Most of those have agreements at the time of purchase. Those are some of the most legitimate dealings in software sales.

[emodendroket]

Anyway, as I replied to the other guy, Venor v. Autodesk shows that some courts have upheld "shrinkwrap" licensing. I don't think it's a settled question in US law.

[rlpb]

That may be their contention, but this is exactly why this is fundamentally different to the copyleft case. The GPL requires none of this.

I would add that it seems pretty specious to argue that I bought a license when the license was not presented to me at the time I paid for the product and left the store, but I accept that this could be their contention.

[emodendroket]

Perhaps, but not without precedent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc.

(note: the period is part of the URL)