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.
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/
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