Are these claims legal?

[hazel]

I recently borrowed a book called "Knoppix for Dummies" from my local public library. There was a notice on it saying "DVD not available" but no matter! I borrowed it simply because I wanted to read it. But when I read the End User Licence Agreement at the back of the book, I realised why the DVD had been removed. According to this EULA (which could have been drawn up by Bill Gates ), the software on the disc belongs to Wiley Publishing Inc who own "all right, title and interest". You can run it only on one computer at a time. You can make only one copy for archiving purposes. You cannot pass the disc to someone else while keeping the system on your own hard disk. You cannot modify the software.

This is followed immediately by the GNU General Public License, which (as I read it) explicitly prevents people from making claims of this kind (see clauses 4 and 5). Just what is going on here?

[netstrider]

It seems to clash right with the GPL, heck knows how they managed that...

[Vergil83]

Is it just a knoppix dvd or is it a knoppix dvd with something extra on it. In that case, I guess the fine print of the EULA says that it covers the extra stuff.

[bigtomrodney]

I would imagine that it is the standard message that somehow found its way in there, though that doesn't make it in any way valid. I'd send the publishers a note asking them about it, but it might not hurt to let the guys at knoppix.net and the FSF know.

[easuter]

FSF GPL Compliance Lab:

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/compliance.html

[d38dm8nw81k1ng]

like BTR said: it'll be a standard notice. i wouldn't pay too much attention to it (especially if the GPL invalidates it). i would imagine it would be because they give away the software for "free", the publishers of some programs will want terms to that effect (even if the full-price software they sell allows multiple users).

[cousinlucky]

I spent a few years working in a lawyers office ( I am not a lawyer however ). I believe that the distro disk was legally removed because the book publisher sold the book with the disk enclosed as an enticement or bonus of purchasing the book.

Because the book was on a library shelf no one would be purchasing it; therefore the publisher had every right to demand that the disk be removed before the book was placed onto a library shelf.

The book I bought at Barnes & Noble ( Linux for Dummies ) had an enclosed Suse 9.3 CD disk which just got me to purchase Suse 10.

However I am sure the publishers of the book had to pay Novell for the disks that were included in each and every book.

Watch and see if Microsoft does not eventually claim that all Linux users should have to pay them for whatever common programs that exist within Suse and the other Linux distro's.

[hazel]

I don't know exactly what was on the disc that wasn't there, but, judging by what was in the book, I think it was just standard Knoppix. So GPL should certainly apply. And the fact that this license statement came first means that a lot of people probably wouldn't read much further. Yes, I think I shall publicise this further and send a note to Wiley as well. BTW I have seen copies of "Fedora for Dummies" in the same library and they include the DVD, so it isn't normal library policy to remove them.

[MikeTbob]

This is a really interesting thread, please keep us updated.

[hazel]

Well, I emailed both Wiley and knopper.net. Haven't had any response from Wiley but Herr Knopper replied the next day: basically that if the disc contained any additional non-GPL material, the EULA could apply to that but otherwise it was invalid. He thought too that it was probably a standard EULA included in error.

As far as I can tell from the text, the disc contained mainly Knoppix, Mozilla Firefox/Thunderbird, and OpenOffice. Mozilla is not GPL but I think it is open source. In any case, the EULA refers throughout to "the Software" and defines "the Software" as eveything on the disc. No suggestion that it covers only non-GPL material. And there is even a clause which states that if any of "the Software" is covered by other licenses, this one overrules them in case of disagreement. So if anyone went on to read the GPL which follows and saw the contradictions, they'd be bound to conclude that most of the GPL didn't apply in this case. Definitely not kosher!