In contract law it is essential that both sides get something of value out of the deal. If not, it's not a contract. This is called "consideration" and it's why e.g. you'll see on the news people pay a symbolic $1 for a failing business or a tumbledown building rather than nothing at all.
For example you can't make a contract in which I just pay you $50 per year. But you can have a contract in which I pay you $50 per year and in exchange you deliver me a girl scout cookie on the 7th of November every year.
The court doesn't (usually) care whether the deal made is a good idea, $50 for a girl scout cookie seems like terrible value, but it _is_ an exchange of two things of value.
Because the GPL spells out what you're getting and what you're swapping for it, it will always satisfy this idea of consideration. In contrast very often "click through" or "shrinkwrap" licenses don't really do so.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
For example you can't make a contract in which I just pay you $50 per year. But you can have a contract in which I pay you $50 per year and in exchange you deliver me a girl scout cookie on the 7th of November every year.
The court doesn't (usually) care whether the deal made is a good idea, $50 for a girl scout cookie seems like terrible value, but it _is_ an exchange of two things of value.
Because the GPL spells out what you're getting and what you're swapping for it, it will always satisfy this idea of consideration. In contrast very often "click through" or "shrinkwrap" licenses don't really do so.