| Thanks for the info. To reply to your points: > I only point them out to illustrate that it's dangerous to make assumptions about what words mean or to think of the law as a battle of semantics. To be clear, I was never claiming this is legal. I figured well enough that it probably isn't. My question was, what is the legal basis for it. > copyright is a right to exclude Note the comment I replied to wasn't talking about copyright (at least not explicitly). It claimed there is no right to use software without agreeing to its EULA. The entire question here seems to be about whether an EULA is a contract or a (copyright?) license, so that itself isn't clear. But in either case, you presumably have the right to at least copy the work as-is, so I'm assuming no copyright violation is happening at least up to that point. > the act of removing "the 'agree to the gpl' part of the installer" may have created a derivative work Your rebuttal hinges on the implementation of the bypass mechanism. I'm trying to get to the heart of the matter, and I don't get the impression it should depend on that (but do correct me if I'm wrong). If you need a concrete implementation to discuss the crux of it, consider this: you can just as well imagine bypassing some program's agreement by modifying the environment around the program, and thus not actually creating a derivative work. (In the simplest case, imagine a naive program that just checks to see if a "is_licensed=true" exists in some config file, and imagine the user setting that manually to bypass the check. The program stays intact.) I think the heart of the question here is: if you know the intention was to make you agree to the license, but you never agreed to do that, and you managed to get the program to get past that point... what exactly did you violate? It certainly doesn't seem like you violated copyright, given you had every right to copy the work. And it doesn't seem wasn't any contract you were bound by - was there? So when/why is that (not) legal? |