The relevant section is blunt. “The Software is licensed to you, not sold,” the EULA states. “You are granted a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, and personal license to play or use the Software for your private, non-commercial use on the system or device it was intended for.”
The terms also restrict renting, modifying, or obtaining games through unauthorised means. Nothing in there is new, technically. Sony’s EULA has always said this. The timing is what makes it land differently right now.
*laughs in open source*
https://canonical.com/legal/ubuntu-pro/personal
Why would you assume to own software if you don’t even pay to use it?
You can do a bullshit fork and then sell it, but if you owned it you could sell the exact same code with zero changes
To prove your point you’d need that example: an open source program that you can sell for profit with zero changes.
That’s just Ubuntu Pro and it’s basically longer term kernel maintenance plus applies to the universe repo not just main. The only extra functionality is the ability to live patch the kernel. The base install works fine as is but some businesses require the extended support.
By all means, find me a single example of software you actually own…
Because that’s waaaaaaaaay fucking easier than me listing every open source eula one by one
Arch Linux has no EULA because it is not sold software like Ubuntu Pro.
They have a Terms of Service for the online services, which you can be banned from for misuse, but this does not prevent you from using the software. You can legally obtain it through any of the hundreds of mirrors, or even compile it from scratch.
https://terms.archlinux.org/
Right, your link is about use of online services…
There’s no EULA, but after reading up on it, isn’t it even considered software?
Like, it seems to really just be a command line, that straps together a bunch of individual packages, which add up to a very very lightweight OS, and then even more can be added on.
Seems really cool, and I like the idea. But my understanding is the packages themselves have EULA’s on their own and function pretty autonomously.
I think thats going to the closest anyone gets tho, thanks for linking it.
All packages published to the arch linux repository are free software that can be built from source and have permissive licenses. Non-free software such as nvidia drivers and other things are distributed separately through the AUR, and aren’t managed by the Arch Linux team.
I would consider the collection of software provided to be no different than any other OS with optional packages. There are several forks of Arch Linux like EndeavourOS that have more complete defaults.
…
That’s the difference you don’t see.
There’s not one license, there’s multiple. Which is a good system, but doesn’t mean there’s no EULA, it means there’s multiple.
A permissive license is a specific category of open source license. As I said, all official repository software is free and open source. If the terms of the license did not allow it to be freely distributed or was a revocable license, it would not be allowed in the arch repository.
You can, though? If you find someone stupid enough to buy it, that is.
All you have to do is change the name and remove any trademarked branding from it.
So…
They have to change it to legally sell it?
Then they didn’t own it.
Although, I guess thanks for explaining what a “bullshit fork” is, I thought that wouldn’t need explaining on here to be honest