Ok Let me try to address some points about the topic without resorting to extensive quotes. I hope you won't mind if I truncate nicks to save typing fell free to do the same to mine.
Ram asked for documentation about the legal status of EULAs. I do not know of any case anywhere in the world where they have been tested. This is a subject that I have followed for some months now and the general consensus of what I have read is as I suggested. This does not mean there are not differing opinions or that it is impossible there are one or more cases I haven't heard about. I am not an expert but I am interested. If you find something seemingly credible that contradicts what I have said I would look at it and make my own opinion as to its value.
About your (Ram) point about businesses reasons for restricting user rights. I believe that in the case of a for profit company with an effective monopoly the reason is always to maximise profit. Note the use of the term effective, I am not talking about an ideal perfect monopoly but the kind that Microsoft has been convicted by several courts of possessing. That gives Microsoft considerable leeway as to how they treat their customers. When the customers are led to believe they have no viable options they can be squeezed for more money and terms can be made that much more unfair.
On to your point about selling software. I can, right now, sell you a copy of GNU/Linux perfectly legally. I don't own it but I could make a copy of a free version that I have downloaded and sell it to you. Pretty much the only thing I would be required to do is to include all the source code to the software that I sell you. This is the essence of the General Public License version 2 as I understand it. I am not a lawyer so don't take this as legal advice. I am sure there is a little more to it. For more information try this link:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html . Also note that it would not be exactly the same as Red Hat, Debian or some other distribution as a full distribution comes with software with various licenses as well as proprietary look and feel additions. The distributions make their money by selling packages with their own additions and enhancements, configuration scripts and desktop themes etc. and by selling technical support and training contracts. Some are supported by large companies such as SUSE which is owned by Novell. Others such as RedHat are supported by a large IPO. I believe it floated at around $4 billion U.S. but that number might be somewhat off. Still others accept donations, these tend to be smaller niche distributions, Knoppix comes to mind but again I might be mistaken.
Of course I would rather just give you a copy or tell you where you could download it for free.
About "media," if you sell me a picture on a piece of paper I cannot mechanically reproduce it and sell copies. I can add it to a collage or other artwork and sell the result. I can do just about anything I want with that piece of paper with your picture on it except distribute copies of it. This is my understanding of the "principle of First Sale." Search on that term if you want a better explaination. I don't have time. If I am an artist and it is a painting I can reproduce it in my own work as long as I don't represent it as the original. I don't even need to own it to do that. There are other considerations that may come into play that don't have to do with copyright. An example of this is I believe the Louvre in Paris has registered an International Trademark on the Mona Lisa. It is not uncommon for there to be special exceptions to any generality.
Now Zan, You are right and at the same time you are not, I think. Let me explain. Yes a program is information and that information that is protected is the specific source code and its compiled expression. This is similar to an automobiles blueprint and its factory produced expression the vehicle itself. Does that make sense? Now lets go a bit further. If I have a blueprint can I make a replacement part for the car you sold me? I think so With enough tools and expertise I can follow your blueprint and make myself a copy of your car. It would likely not be an exact duplicate as modifications would crop up due to differing production methods. Could I sell it under your brand name? No, of course not. Could I sell it at all? Privately, probably yes, commercially probably not.
Now if I were to recreate it without your help I could sell sell it commercially.
Well It is 5 am and I'm losing track of what I am trying to say. Perhaps I'll try to clean this up tomorrow. I may have to substantially modify this last part I think most of the post will stand though. Just don't want to lose the last two hours of typing. If anyone else can see what I am trying to say feel free to say it .
*Edit1: just a quick note about EULAs. Actually I have heard about one particular EULA that has been tested in various courts and that is the GPL. It is a horse of a different color to the EULAs coming from Microsoft and the like. It is intended to garuntee rights moreso that to restrict them. There is currently some controversy in the OSS community due to the current attempt to update the GPL but that is another topic altogether.
