Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft EULA stokes crusade
Microsoft's new crusade against licenses that enforce source-code sharing has reached the
EULA of their Mobile Internet Toolkit. It even disallows the use of any "Publicly Available Software" tool in the production of software using this SDK. This seems to be a very wide ranging restriction applying to compilers (gcc), editors (vim, staroffice), filesystems (backup on linux server), web-browsers (mozilla logging into some online tool provider), Java (sun's virtual machine). The licenses covered include: the GPL and LGPL, the Artistic License (e.g., PERL), the Mozilla Public License, the Netscape Public License, the Sun Community Source License (SCSL), and the Sun Industry Standards License (SISL). Is this legal? Thanks to Jonathan for the link. Update: 06/26 05:42 PM by S : Here's a
legal opinion on the matter.
Can't use their TCP/IP either, since it's BSD-derived.
What? None? Then why are they specifically babbling on about GPL and Linux? What's the motive?
Now this is really funny... ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/developr/interix/gpl.txt
It is later clarified that any "Publicly Available Software" is considered potentially viral.
Publicly Available Software is defined in part as:
fromWe therefore have the following predicament:
1) BSD's TCP/IP stack is distributed under an open source license.
2) Windows is "derived in any manner, in whole or in part" from BSD's TCP/IP stack.
3) Therefore, by the above definition, Windows is "Publicly Available Software"
4) Therefore, end users may not use Windows to develop software including this Software.
I rated their page as '1' just to be mean. Hehe!
WARNING ... Anyone under the age of 18 or living in a legally-challenged country should either close their eyes or emigrate ....
GPL - virgin code but prepared to be free and easy
LGPL - understands cohabitation but doesn't want to touch the last base
BSD - bisexual and willing to go either way
MIT - has condom ready as anti-warrenty against the spread of aid
APSL - quite prepared to lend a dildo to help fuck up the partner
SCSL - wears a chastity belt so suitors can check in but not out
EULA - bend over, grab ankles, and prepared to be screwed
MSFU - when do you want to be gang-banged today?
This is a part of a well-planned semantic attack. The recent PR from MS has gone from comments from a low-level person, to comments from Ballmer, to the recent comments by Gates. It's a planned and deliberate escalation (remember the 'grassroots' protests they tried to fake a few years back?).
Since it's their agreement, they can call it whatever they want. They're expecting publicity about this at some point, but when it happens, it will be on their terms, using (literally) their terms. The press will spit out a bunch of articles about the "Potentially Viral Software" and the term will get repeated until it lingers in the minds of the public.
It's not legal to include the in the EULA statements that are in themselves a libel. For example, it will be illegal to write a license that disallows the program to be used by "murderers, including Jon Katz".
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Things are probably a little more complicated given MS's monopoly status, however. I can't imagine that even the Republicans could argue that this is just maintainance of their existing monopoly (although Bush does have a way of getting away with policies that should have Americans storming the White House with torches and pitchforks).
Anyhow, I'm sure this won't change anything -- people will take it as seriously as the other bits in the EULA. I mean, have *you* ever paid for a copy of Windows you were using? I haven't. If they can't enforce that they can't enforce anything.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Section 2 --
Due to the nature of the development work, Microsoft provides no assurance that any specific errors or discrepancies in the Software will be corrected
Of course its not going to be fixed if me the little guy has a problem with your software and of course I wont have access to your source code so i can fix my own production environment
Section 2 item B
Recipient may not use the Software in a live operating environment with data that has not been sufficiently backed up
I hope someone from m$ is reading, I am a small businessman and I do see the oppressiveness of the machine that is called m$. m$ got where it was because it was the little guy working for the little guy. Now you are acting like some of your original competitors and soon will be relegated to your monolithic ancestors.
Ye gods!
I'd seen (i) before but I hadn't spotted (ii). Legally compelled to install unspecified software within 2 business days, no matter what? What are the penalties on failure to comply with this? (yes, I know UCITA would change the penalties to potential jail time, but what are the penalties NOW?)
This is a recipe for "You've been a baaaad company, Soko. As you agreed, you are contractually obliged to obtain a license for the commercially released version of the software. Just for you, the price is $50,000 or your immortal soul ;) just kidding! $50,000 or controlling interest..."
Using their SDK is not the same as incorporating code from their SDK. This may not matter much for purposes of the GPL, but in the case of the LGPL, the first would imply no obligations whereas the latter would.
Posted by polar_bear:
.NET software" - even if you want to use .NET solutions on Win2K servers, but have a preference for using Emacs as your IDE...you're screwed if you follow their rules. They're putting developers in a "take it or leave it" situation that's simply inexcusable.
.NET and Microsoft in droves. They need a lesson in humility - a "time-out" as it were - before they should be allowed back into the computing community. Whether you agree with the ideals of Free Software or Open Source or not - you should at least stand up for your right to use whatever tools you want.
I'm a very staunch pro-Linux advocate, but I try to keep the anti-Microsoft commentary to a minimum. It's just not necessary, I think Linux stands on its own merits.
But this...it's just going too far, don't you think? This license might as well just say "you cannot use any non-Microsoft tools in the development or deployment of
For God's sake, I hope that this scares people away from
Anyone dumb enough to bend over for this treatment deserves what they get.
Whether you read the EULA or not, it can affect you.Probably better to go in with your eyes open...
Someone needs to clue MS in that the GPL isn't an airborne virus.
I'd suggest that Microsoft does, in fact, fully understand the GPL - it's not like they've ever been short of lawyers.
I think what's really happening here is spin. A coordinated attack on the GPL (for whatever reason you might speculate) using every means of communication they have. Looks like their latest 'innovation' is the use of the EULA as a spin-delivery device. Which makes sense, really, considering its apparent credibility. It is, after all, legalese. Anything a customer sees there is given instant legal credibility in his/her mind.
Microsoft will connect the word "viral" to all that is GPL.
And then, given Microsoft's other comments, people will believe viruses cause cancer.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Right, and so what? Many people before you who were involved in questionable businesses have had to switch jobs when the prevailing winds changed.
--
So what happens when some skr1pt k1dd13 postmaster in Tennessee sends them some child porn as feedback? They've just claimed ownership. Can you actually arrest a corporation?
Pick One: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~stremler/sigs/sigs.html (Note - disable Javascript first!)
If you really want to make Microsoft squirm write the best piece of software ever, and then make sure that it is released under the GPL. Microsoft knows that their business model will never work with open protocols and GPLed source code. IBM, Sun, and some of the others (perhaps RedHat?) could get by selling consulting, services, and hardware, but Microsoft's entire business model is centered around creating de-facto closed standards by leveraging their desktop monopoly, and then using this standard as a toll bridge that the rest of the industry has to pay to cross to get to the end user.
Despite the fact that Dell, Compaq, and your local OEM down the street actually build the hardware and sell it, Microsoft controls what icons get deployed on the desktop, and what messages the machine displays while it boots. I imagine that it irks Dell to no end to realize that it actually competes with MSN (doesn't Dell have an ISP arm), and yet they have to include MSN icons by default on their boxen.
However, the more competition that Free Software (specifically GPLed Free Software) puts up the more leverage all of us have against Microsoft. Eventually either Microsoft will change its tune, or people will simply migrate away (or GNU/Linux will cease to be viable and Gates will control computing).
GPLed software already can not be used by Microsoft subversively. They can't close it up and charge for it, and they don't have a very good record as a service organization.
It's not like a EULA has any teeth, anyway. Remember about two years ago when many PC's were only sold with Windows, and people who used Linux instead tried to return their Windows CD's to Microsoft, as the EULA told them to? "If you do not agree to the terms of this software license," it said (and they didn't agree to the terms), "then return this Software Product to Microsoft for a full refund." They tried to get a $90 refund on the CD's, but Microsoft refused to oblige to the terms of the EULA.
If people violate the EULA and continue to use open-source software in conjunction with Microsoft software, and if Microsoft fights back legally, just take a page from their book and make sure the court case is drawn out long and slowly, until it doesn't really matter any more.
But when has this ever happened? When has any open source software "created obligations" for the maker of a proprietary piece of software, or "granted to any third party any rights to or immunities under" the original maker's intellectual property rights?
An example of this would be if you marketed and sold proprietary software, and one day someone knocked on your door and said, "I'm sorry to tell you this, but someone has just made your software part of the Emacs distribution. Because Emacs is licensed under the GPL, that means you must provide us with the source to your proprietary software right now, or we'll sue."
This is nonsense, of course -- it's completely backwards from the way things work. A public license may preclude the use of restricted-license software in public-licensed work, but it won't try to force a restricted license to be treated as public. I really don't understand what Microsoft is trying to protect itself from. The only way that a public license would obligate Microsoft in any way would be if Microsoft were to try to use a public-license software program in one of their products.
Actually, no, I know exactly what Microsoft is doing: trying to drive a wedge between Microsoft products and open-source projects. Microsoft is hoping to corral corporate America into going exclusively with Microsoft software, and to require them to keep away from open source.
I hate the term 'Viral Software' as applied to open-source licenses, by the way.
Hmmm. If this is true, then could somebody
sue Microsoft for not including the source for their software?
Microsoft would need to defend itself, presumably by saying "The GPL doesn't say that we have to," which would necessarily go against their public stance of the GPL being "Virulent."
IANAL, but as far as I can see, it's entirely unnecessary for that purpose. If I don't have the right to distribute Microsoft's source, I can't force it under the GPL merely by distributing it with GPL'd code. I don't have the right.
As far as the GPL is concerned, I can't, by merely including or linking a third party's proprietary code with GPL'd code, force the third party to expose their source code to the world. The result of the GPL is that I can't legally distribute such a combination (though I can use such a combination in-house, as the GPL's restrictions don't kick in until I try to distribute), not that the third party has to distribute their source.
Hence, it appears that this part of the EULA is useless for protecting Microsoft's rights. The GPL, oddly enough, already protects them. The only apparent real use of this to Microsoft is to spew FUD and to deceive people as to the real nature of the GPL.
He's got the correct interpretation.
Vermifax
Vermifax
Logout
Not this again. Sigh.
Reasons for EULA enforcability are totally distinct from copying software. Signing your name to them with your own hands is probably not an issue these days. (stupid Congress thinks 'digital signature' has anything to do with signing things) The unnegotiability, the restrictive terms, and the lack of bargaining positions are all more significant reasons for finding EULA's void 99.44% of the time. Given that this EULA is presented _prior_ to dl, however, it has more of a leg to stand on than usual.
However, the court system felt that the argument that copying software to RAM (or whatever) in order to use it without a license was in fact copyright infringement. *BUT* Congress rendered the point moot years ago, by amending copyright law so that copyrights do not exist with respect to copying legally acquired pieces of software for the purposes of using it (e.g. to RAM, HD, whatever) or for backing it up. Check out 17 USC 117 for the specifics (not that I'm a lawyer either)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.
Secondly, YANAL: if I write program Foo that links against Microsoft code, and I GPL Foo, that doesn't mean squat to Microsoft, despite their current lying PR campaign. If the Microsoft code is part of their OS or compiler distribution, then my GPL'ing Foo means nothing. Otherwise, my GPL'ing Foo means that I am the only one allowed to redistribute Foo (because no one else could do so without violating the GPL). In neither case does anything "viral" happen.
While I am not completely familiar with the original debacle I think you have it backwards.
RMS must have said. KDE cannot be GPL because KDE was linked to QT. And, the QT license was not compatible with having a GPL product linked to it. Therefore, KDE could not be considered GPL.
Which I think is what MS is really saying. They are saying our license is not compatible with most Open Source Licenses, so if you try to distibute your Open Source software made with our SDK it won't really be Open Source. Which I would guess has been a pretty true statement for quite a while. The difference here is they are saying explicitly, and adding a lot of BS FUD about viral licenses, etc...
Perhaps Microsoft believes that the public will consider them the final authority on viruses. After all, their programs, such as outlook and word, are very well known to be very effective transmitters of virii.
** Martin
Could this be construed libelous or defamatory to use "Potentially Viral" when referring to all GPL'd code/software? The term viral has negative connotations that the layperson likely will interpret as "dangerous" or "malicious".
Not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in whole or in part."
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
It goes on to list specific 'examples' of such licences, including the GPL and other licences.
Disclaimer:
Microsoft is the end
Gates and Mundie it will send
Throwing all code you see
Into obscurity
Death of freedom choice
Never an open voice
Innovation's end
Never will it mend
Never
Fear
To begin the proprietary monopoly
Microsoft is the end
To begin the proprietary monopoly
Blacken our world Microsoft
Blustering of words
Free software is for the birds
Deadly game to play
Keeping geeks at bay
A pathetic license deal
Nothing left to steal
Never release code again
Microsoft is not your friend
Never
Uncertainty
To begin the proprietary monopoly
Microsoft is the end
To begin the proprietary monopoly
Blacken our world Microsoft
Microsoft
Opposition...Confrontation...Deviation...total lie
Embrace...Extend...Extinguish...standards die
Darkest hour
Proclaimed truths
True death of quality
Indication...Integration...Litigation...no justice for you and me
Humiliation...Indignation...Violation...software should be free
See our efforts
Trampled and destroyed
See our efforts die
Made the Microsoft way
Take our compilers away
Millions of our peers
Feel the grip and fears
Protesting in vain
Only corporatism remains
All is said and done
There will be no more fun
Never
Doubt
To begin the proprietary monopoly
Microsoft is the end
To begin the proprietary monopoly
FUD
Is the outcome of stupidity
Darkest plutocracy
In the exit of common sense and sanity
Blacken our world Microsoft
Microsoft
I am now going to go post a copy of this outside my door. We all know (within our community) that the whole notion of Linux and World Domination is a fun joke. We aren't really at war with Microsoft.. we're all just trying to scratch those programming itches by creating software that works for us (and yes, we release it for free in the hopes that it will help someone else). But out in the real-world, Microsoft is trying to dominate the world that you and I live in. This latest licensing agreement issue is just another example of their determination to those ends.
So, in the spirt of the joke, enjoy.
-phillip
If the EULA becomes MS standard-operating-procedure will projects like wingimp become illegal, after MS relicenses all their DLLs?
Does wingimp use MS compilers?
(looks like GTK can be compiled with MSVC or gcc 2.95xxx)
Is it possible to write any windows application if you can't link with their DLL's?
Finally though all of us linux bigots will scream, is this that different from when the GPL is applied indiscriminately to things like libraries? I believe if a library is released under GPL and not LGPL it is not possible to link against it in non free (non GPL?) software.
I suppose in the context of MS being a monopoly we can say it is inherently different.
salsa_43 n0spam-at yahoo.com
since you're not allowed to distribute any of microsoft's proprietary information about the api, it seems that releasing source code at all would be prohibited. if a gpled program is written and distributed, suddenly the world will know all about the api used in the sdk. i think microsoft is just trying to spread fud about the gpl by going over the top in describing exactly the same license that most other companies would use.
That EULA says that the GPL requires separate works distributed with GPL software to be GPL'd, which is false. Microsoft itself sells software that includes GPL tools.
Great stuff! The moment you do that they won. Because Free Software is all about Freedom for everybody.
Cheers, Brenno de Winter.
All that's going on here is that Microsoft is saying "Hey our software is Closed Source therefore you can't distribute it with Open Source software because it would breach the Open Source licenses."
That's fair enough except that they may not get as many people interested in their crappy beta warez any more and it may even spur some into developing their own software, and in fact already has "Linux" and "FreeBSD" being prime examples in the OS market. That's what the free/open source is all about. Don't want to pay, so create it yourself but try not to help out the megacorps while your at it.
Microsoft will probably place this little gem of information into every EULA from hence forth and lose a large market share from people wanting elegant open source coders to write software for them instead of braindead MS crackers and virus writers.
When shit hits the fan get some of these https://youtu.be/pY-GncsZ-UE
Would that mean that they would no longer be able to distribute the Java Runtime along with their OS because it allows people to run open source software on their system? ;-)
Would that mean that if your software had been written using an open source compiler that you would not be allowed to run it on any of Microsoft's OS?
Talk about cut your head off with a ferking sword for OSS sake.
When shit hits the fan get some of these https://youtu.be/pY-GncsZ-UE
Found this little gem, that most have probably already read, in the MS site amusing ... to the cleaners!"
"Some open source licenses are viral, that is, they require that all derivative works be licensed on the same terms as the original program. These licenses are described as viral because they "infect" derivative programs. Viral licenses vary in how infectious they are, depending on how they define which programs are derivative works. However, one of the dominant open source license?the GPL?is the most infectious. It attempts to subject any work that includes GPL-licensed code to the GPL. Thus, if a government or business uses even a few lines of GPL-licensed code in a program, and then re-distributes that program to others, it would be required to provide the program under the GPL. And, under the GPL, the recipient must be given access to the source code and the freedom to redistribute the program on a royalty-free basis."
This statement sounds exactly like the current development EULA's from MS. "Anything you write/do using Microsoft products must not include anyone elses software or we'll take your
When shit hits the fan get some of these https://youtu.be/pY-GncsZ-UE
IIRC, the cygwin toolkit gcc compiler for windows 9x makes your compiled programs require a library, cygwin32.dll, which is GPL instead of LGPL....
I've put in a request for a magnetic barrier wall to be installed in our office, with all Msft software, data and users on one side, and everyone else on the other side, with no network or anything allowed to traverse. That way I'll be protected from the users who can't figure out their multi-language spell checking options in Msft Word®. Of course, I'll have the least expensive, most robust, productive environment while their busy tracking down whose Outlook is sending the latest Virus de Jour to everyone on their customer list. I'm going to miss those guys, but they can just drop off the paycheck thru the bullet-proof glass window.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Thanks for the only intelligent reply to my post.
~Cederic
The offending part of the EULA:
"(c) Open Source. Recipient's license rights to the Software are conditioned upon Recipient (i) not distributing such Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with Potentially Viral Software (as defined below); and (ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in whole or in part."
In other words, don't distribute any bits of their SDK using one of the "naughty" licences. Which is fair enough - distribute the software you write w/o any bits of their SDK, and tell people where to find the SDK separately.
Shrug, no big issue here. Move on, etc.
~Cederic
I was thinking about the same thing. Microsoft are bandying this "viral" term about with the intent that uninformed people will go from "viral" to "virus" and thus assume all Open Source/Free Software is riddled with virii. We need turn there own word(s) against them. How many virii are developed using Mircosoft products? Visual Basic should be considered viral software as it allows the development of virii. Outlook is a viral platform as it allows the execution of virii
And why shouldn't it be? Microsoft isn't preventing anybody from writing software, they're just saying "if you don't agree with me, you can't use my stuff to do it".
So don't use their crappy stuff.
The coding world gets along quite happily without it.
-
Isn't it just a little ironic for a open source advocate to be questioning if a restrictive software license is legal? After all GPL does require you to give away the source to your software if you use GPLed source, or staticly link to a GPLed application.
The GPL and EULAs are different beasts entirely.
The GPL only covers distribution of the software in question, and explicitly grants you rights that you would not have under copyright law (namely, ability to publish and distribute the code or derivative works without compensation to the author).
EULAs cover use of the software; as a result, they tend to restrict what you can do with their product, as traditional copyright already covers distribution of the software.
The link to the EULA no longer seems to work....suspicious? or am I just paranoid?
I hate the term 'Viral Software' as applied to open-source licenses, by the way.
The please, please don't use the term. It is not only a negative connotation, it is entirely wrong, a denigrative label applied to the GPL back during the early BSD vs GPL flamefests and rebutted very thoroughly in those threads (search groups.google.com for gpl bsd license if you're interested in dredging up old grudges). Since those early, volite days both RMS and the BSD folks have chilled out quite a bit and done as much as they could to reconcile their differences, and to respect those differences where reconciliation was not possible. This includes the changes to the BSD license making it GPL compatible as well as the recent endorsement by the Free Software Foundation for releasing the ogg/vorbis specification under the BSD license (to facilitate widespread implimentation in embedded hardware. think: portable ogg/vorbis players).
The GPL is not a virus, it is a vaccine, an innoculation against later abuse of your code by having someone, such as Microsoft, take your hard work, incorporate it into a proprietary product which is then extended and kept closed, marginalizing your project in the process.
The BSD license lacks this protection, but it does have an advantage in that it more straighforwardly allows code to be (re)implemented in hardware and combined with other proprietary works where it makes sense. It is obvious to all but the most zealous that both licenses have their place, and are appropriate in some situations and inappropriate in others.
Freedom is important, and in my opinion today's climate, as epitomized by the anti-freedom dishonesty and FUD Microsoft and its lackeys are spreading, we need all the innoculation against abuse we can get. That is why I prefer the GPL in most instances to the FreeBSD license, and why I based my own Free Media License on aspects of the GNU GPL (and GNU FDL).
Don't kid yourselves. We may not think of this as a war, and certainly if we take the rhetoric of the Microsoft lurkers in the crowd here and at K5 seriously we will continue to not think of it as a war, but make no mistake about it: Microsoft considers it a war and they will not stop until our freedom to use, modify, copy, and distribute the software we write is gone. Either through legal maneuvers, or by cutting us off from developers, users, and (perhaps most importantly) hardware manufacturers. This is a battle for our very freedom, and we should be neither complacent nor shy in informing others of exactly what is at stake.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
This "You can only play our way" is not very new. At least in MSIE 5 for "MacOS classic" the EULA states that you can only use MSIE in the OS it was intended for. Now I have never read the EULA for MSIE for Windows, but I'm guessing that it has a similar statement. My understanding is that this shoots down anyone trying to use MSIE in Linux under WINE. IANAL, but WINE could be considered emulation, and since emulation is legal I seriously doubt that Microsoft has a leg to stand on, but this has never stopped Microsoft before and probably never will.
Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
That's a shitty attitude to have.... Who actually pays attention to the GPL? Especially when it's quite dumb. Who knows how much commerical (non-GPL) software steals snips, chunks, functions [etc.] from GPL sources? Damn, I fed another troll. Must stop posting....
signal, noise, to me it's all the same.
Nope - you get it for free every day on Slashdot.
Guess you bots never thought your precious arguments would end up in a Microsoft EULA, did ya? Bill says keep up the good work-er-flamewars.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
No more Microsoft products. We have just been given a reason to become a 100% microsoft free shop.
Thanks microsoft for giving me the weapon I needed to push the board over the edge to completely embrace linux/bsd and opensource.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
You're reading that completely wrong. If what you said is true then all of the Windows libraries (as well as Solaris's, HPUX's, AIX's, etc, etc) would have to have been GPL'd long ago because GCC, GDB, ls, mv, cp, etc, etc all link to them. Writing a program that links against a library in no way, shape or form modifies the library. The GPL includes verbiage that talks about linking to system libraries (and the author of a program can always say that this is licensed under the GPL and you have explicit permission to link to library X).
Furthermore, there is no way for a license to superced the original license. You cant take something that I wrote and apply a new license to it.
Petreley is right (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/06/21/00821 6&mode=thread).
Stop following the alien to his hotel room. This isn't important.
Let's have some more article on open source authentication services vs. M$ passport.
Microsoft is not "eating up the GPL" twinky. They're saying "you can't use this toolkit to develop GPL'ed software because you can't rerelease this toolkit like the GPL says you have to". I don't see what is so difficult to comprehend about that, I picked it up from my first read of the EULA. Microsoft can make their licenses as restrictive as possible, it is your responsibility to read through them for fuck sake. This isn't really any worse than the GPL which says if I use ANY amount of GPL'ed code in my program I need to release the source code under the GPL. It forces you to open your code and release everything which is the opposite of Microsoft's licensing which sayy you can't release anything.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
It seems pretty clear that M$ is trying very hard confuse the issue of when the GPL kicks in. In reality, the GPL affects very few potential users of GPL software. If a company uses Linux as a server OS, or serves their web pages with Apache, or edits their files with Emacs, then the GPL has basically no effect.
But, this reality is not helpful to M$'s propaganda. So, they are intentially confusing the issue of when the "viral" part of the GPL kicks in. It only applies if you are writing software which includes source code which is GPL. The reality is that very few companies are in the business of selling software. The vast majority of companies are merely end users, and these are the companies M$ is trying to scare.
Notice how they frame their restriction:
(ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software
The confusion is created with the vague use of the word use. For most companies, use means to simply run a program. That's what I think of when I talk about "using" a program. I "use" Linux. I "use" MSWord. I "use" Windows. Technically, I'm sure they will claim that use means "include source code in another program" if pressed, since that is the only time that their claims are true. But, you will see these claims made again and again with vague references to "using" GPL software.
We can hope this will backfire on them. After all, it's really a non-issue. If you are in the software development business, you damn well better read and understand the license on any source code you plan to include in your product, GPL or not. On the other hand, if you are just and end user of software, the GPL is about as close to public domain as you can possibly get. The mere "use" (i.e. running) of GPL software creates no obligations on the user. Contrast this to the EULA that M$ applies to all users. M$ is the one that requires users to agree to pages of dense legalese to understand what circumstances they can run the software under, not the open source community.
Exactly. Furthermore, the license doesn't just prohibit applications developed using the SDK from being distributed under the GPL:
Granted, the mention of open source as "viral" is egregious. But MS is actually prohibiting distribution of software in any form.
What is a little more disturbing, though, is this part:
Does this mean that I can't build, say, a library using this SDK that can be called from a Perl script? I don't know: I'm not a lawyer, and my head hurts. Plus, I need a nap.
Actually, when they define they define the term Potentially Viral Software, they seem to define it as all Open Source software (with the capitals). This is quite encompassing. Much moreso than merely Free Software.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
But the the license fragment at:
Another story that misrepresents the truth. (Score:5, Informative)
by rabtech (russ_sdot.boneville@net.net.net) on 01:43 PM June 21st, 2001 EST (#121)
and
Re:sigh, story is a troll (Score:4, Informative)
by Agthorr (agthorr@barsoom.org) on 01:46 PM June 21st, 2001 EST (#134)
(User #135998 Info) http://www.barsoom.org/~agthorr
(Be sure to read both!)
This seems to include BSD as one of the things to be avoided.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
But that was in 1988. Since then quite a few laws have been passed that strenghtened the rights of companies, and weakened the rights of users. You may find that this is one of the cases undercut by, e.g., the DMCA.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
IANAL, but it seems to me that if MS weren't a monopoly, then it would be legal for them to impose these conditions. They aren't really that much more stringent than the conditions imposed by the GPL.
And it seems like they will be found to not be a monopoly. Didn't Bush promise that at one point?
So, to a court, the rules would not be those pertinant to a monopoly, but just the normal ones. And MS are the copyright holders of record. So they have the right to deny anyone the right to copy.
Now, I may believe that MS is a monopoly. I may have no doubt about it. But that's not what's going to matter in front of a court.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
That's so much bullshit. The scary part is that you seem to actually believe what you're saying. You're apparently one of those "Information wants to be free" kind of people. While that may be true (the personification of information is pretty dumb, imho, but whatever), information is not created on its own. Somebody (or a number of somebodies) has to do the research or development (or drawing, or writing, or architecting, or ...) to create that information, and they deserve to be compensated for their work if they so desire.
Now, let's pick apart games in particular. A game is much more than just the underlying code. It's art (graphical and written/spoken word). To argue that a video game should be freely available is to argue that art, literature, and music should all be freely available, with no compensation for the creators at all. How do you ever expect to have any new art/music/literature/video games if this were to come to pass? None of those categories would simply fall off the face of the earth, but the quantity produced would significantly decrease. And the quality of what's left would even suffer, as it's difficult to dedicate oneself to one's art while working a day job so that one may stay fed and clothed.
It's not FUD to advocate for-pay software (whether you get source with your purchase or not). It's idiocy to advocate otherwise.
I'm not talking about getting rich off of your art. I'm not even talking about maintaining a "comfortable" lifestyle. I'm talking about being able to put food on the table, a roof over your head, and clothes on your back. One would assume (without digging into historical documents, which I don't have time to do right now) that Van Gogh, Beethoven, Mozart, etc were able to at least make a paltry living off of their art, else they'd not have had the chance to make their art.
People talk about wanting to be able to make a living off of doing what they love. Well, if your love is writing software, or writing a novel, or writing/playing music, or painting portraits, or whatever, then you're going to want to be able to live off of the skill you have. The suggestion that nobody should ever have to pay for intellectual property is absurd, because it denies the artists the right to eat food.
While I agree that if not even a single dime could be made off of art, you'd still see artists producing works. However, one must wonder how much better those works would be if that artists were able to concentrate on them full time, rather than after a 9-5 day job.
Microsoft's definition of "Beta" is apparently different than yours, which is okay. However, if you want to look at beta software as a form of shareware, consider this -- the clause "you must upgrade to the final version" is the same as a shareware author saying "if you wish to continue using this product after the free evaluation period, you must pay me for a full version". No difference. Microsoft isn't going to force you to use the final version. You certainly have the option to stop using the software. However, if you're working on a product that is using that SDK, and you plan on releasing that product some day (either to users, or to a production server, or whatever), then it's in your best interest to make sure you're using the final version for your product, as beta software inevitably will have problems (hint: it's beta. It's not release quality yet).
Right, they don't have to support anything. OF course, it's in their interest to support the beta users, as that's valuable feedback for the final product. Microsoft has a long tradition of supporting developers. Look at the scope of their MSDN project. While that may not be considered active support, it is still support. And requiring MSDN to support Beta 1, and Beta 2, and RC1, and RC2, and the final release version all at the same time is ridiculous. The sane thing to do is to say that when Beta 2 is released, then Beta 1 is no longer supported and you better damned well upgrade. And so on up the ladder to release.
It may not be how you'd support a product, but it's how Microsoft supports a product, and it's been working for 25+ years so far.
The major difference here is SDK vs Product. While it makes sense to time-expire a beta product, how would you do that with an SDK that's essentially nothing more than a bunch of headers, libs, and docs sitting on your drive? As well, simply not using a product after the expiration date is easily done -- just stop using. But when you're writing against an SDK, the assumption here is that you want to continue using the SDK. The alternative is to not use the SDK anymore. And that's all right, because if you're just evaluating the SDK and decide you don't want to use it, there's no problem (assuming that you really aren't using the SDK anymore). Once you decide that you want to continue using that SDK, though, you need to obtain a copy of the final version and a license to continue using it past the beta period.
SDK != Product. It's FUD to consider the possibility that Microsoft would use such a clause in the XP license, because XP is not an SDK. (The current betas are time-limited, so nothing else would be necessary to "force" an upgrade to RTM when XP ships. And such a clause in a shipping product would be redundant and meaningless).
Try some common sense, man. A EULA is a contract that can be terminated by either party at any time (note that this doesn't mean that you're absolved of any possible contractual abuse dating from when you were still under the EULA; it just means you can get out of the EULA whenever you please by taking certain steps). To do so, all you have to do is stop using the relevant product (remove it from your computer, possibly return any media like CDs or books). Thus, the phrase you're so intent on interprets to something along the lines of, "If you wish to continue using this SDK, then you're required to upgrade to the final version when it's released and obtain (possibly purchase) a license for said SDK." Obviously, you can opt out of that at any time simply by discontinuing your use of the SDK.
The SDK in question is a beta SDK. As far as point (i) goes, of course they're going to require the recipient to upgrade to the final version when it's released -- it makes no sense to continue supporting a beta once the gold version exists. And for point (ii), again, this is a beta. If Microsoft makes major changes to the SDK, changes that need more testing than their internal testers can do, then it once again makes sense to require your beta testers to update. On top of that, it also means that when you're supporting a beta SDK, you don't have to support every permutation of that beta, only the latest builds.
Please try to understand what you're talking about, rather than slipping into the Slashdot FUD mode that seems to easy to obtain around here.
Does that mean I can't use it with Outlook?-)
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
(Emphasis mine)
Looks to me like the above language means "you test it, you buy it". I sure as fscking hell won't ever use this anyway, but thought that point may be usefull to explain to the PHBs why it's a bad idea in the first place.
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
How does this work with other software from Microsoft - for instance Office, Internet Explorer - etc. for MacOSX? I've been curious to see what it will be compiled with (gcc?) - so does this remove the Mac people from developing with any of the same tools that the rest of the company uses for development? Could be me, but this seems a stupid business move. "You can only play our way" will not bode well if the Monopoly case ever starts up again.
c) Open Source. Recipient's license rights to the Software are conditioned upon Recipient (i) not distributing such Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with Potentially Viral Software (as defined below); and (ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in whole or in part. For purposes of the foregoing, "Potentially Viral Software" means software which is licensed pursuant to terms that: (x) create, or purport to create, obligations for Microsoft with respect to the Software or (y) grant, or purport to grant, to any third party any rights to or immunities under Microsoft's intellectual property or proprietary rights in the Software. By way of example but not limitation of the foregoing, Recipient shall not distribute the Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with any Publicly Available Software. "Publicly Available Software" means each of (i) any software that contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any software that is distributed as free software, open source software (e.g. Linux) or similar licensing or distribution models; and (ii) any software that requires as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of such software that other software distributed with such software (A) be disclosed or distributed in source code form; (B) be licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (C) be redistributable at no charge. Publicly Available Software includes, without limitation, software licensed or distributed under any of the following licenses or distribution models, or licenses or distribution models similar to any of the following: (A) GNU's General Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library GPL (LGPL), (B) The Artistic License (e.g., PERL), (C) the Mozilla Public License, (D) the Netscape Public License, (E) the Sun Community Source License (SCSL), and (F) the Sun Industry Standards License (SISL).
Wow. MS is really pushing the "viral" thing. I guess they found the meme they're gonna fight with, and this is it.
It seems they're not afraid to scare off potential developers (who are already GNU software users and are unlikely to develop on MS anyway).
For those of you who *still* develop on MS platform AND use GNU tools to do it.. ask yourselves "why?" Is it the only job you can get? Do you really need the money? MS doesn't want your kind in their camp.
Sure, you are the Rosa Parks of the free software movement proving that you deserve to sit in the front of the MS bus.. but do you REALLY want to go where that bus is going? MS thought they wanted to garner a free-software-like grassroots community around MS to compete with OSS (they said as much in the Halloween documents), but it is clear that they have now completely given up on this and opened fire. YOU are now the enemy - why are you still treating MS as a friend?
This EULA is legally unenforcible. But so what? Most EULAs are unenforcible pieces of pseudo-legalese.
Microsoft, nor any other company or private concern, can take away the rights that copyright gives you WITHOUT a contract that you have explicitly agreed to. In the real world, contracts require your signature. Merely using the software is not good enough. Opening the shrink-wrap is not good enough. Clicking "ok" on an install screen is not good enough.
The whole computer industry is under the delusion that they get to unilaterally create agreements. This is bogus.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
IANAL, AIDWTB (I Am Not A Lawyer, And I Don't Want To Be).
If I read this correctly, basically, Microsoft dictates what kind of products you can use to work on this code. Hmmm. How long until you have to agree to only use Microsoft tools?
This, of course, is moronic. First of all, people are just going to ignore this, and unless Microsoft wants to have Code Police on guard, they're going to have the damndest time enforcing this.
Secondly, they've just limited people's interests in working with this code. "Whoops, sorry, you're not allowed to use your beloved tool with us!"
Third, if they keep throwing down gauntlets like this, someone is going to pick one up and give them a good smack. This is handing their competitors a wonderful opportunity ("Unlike Microsoft, we don't care what tools you use") and of course sticking their collective rear ends back in legal crosshairs ("How long until their agreements forbid the use of competitors non-OS tools?")
I'll be the first to say I actually think M$ products get an unfair rap many times, and I'll also be the first to say they have the PR skills of an epileptic monkey and serious ethical problems.
This is just another case of Microsoft, detached from common sense, doing what they've done for years. It's gonna catch up with them.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Guns don't kill people. JAVA kill's people!
Your creative use of the apostrophe kills people. Let Bob set you straight.
If you take the proper route to it rather than a link to just the license page it appears in a pop-up window, so it's fine that it closes that.
Sig is taking a break!
--Ben
Capitolism is for losers? You've never seriously studied economics have you. So, your going to start a new ism? Capitolism, Communism, Walter Paradoxism. So when you go to the market, what do you give them for your bread? Free software? Maby some tech support. Sounds like bartering to me. Sorry won't work.
Your absolutly right, for a legal document, this contained very little in terms of definition of what "viral software" is. So by these terms I can't even use software I wrote for myself, as I didn't charge myself for it, and I have its source code. :) Or MSIE as you pointed out, though thats a different kind of "free" but they didn't specify.
Yes, but how do I get such a swimming pool, most likly by finding some people who will do it, and paying them money, thus returning it to people who have not. The only place where that breaks down is if the swimming pool company is a mega corporation, and they only buy products from other mega corportation. In which in any case those mega corportations still have employees without much money that eventually get paid. Money is constantly cycling and as long as we have a high enought GNP that means it is getting around to everyone. If the GNP starts slipping that means the money is going into hands that arn't spending it. But a simple fact, that has so far has always been true, but not nessearly been proven mathematically (meaning there are cases where it could go the other way). That thoughout history, any groups GNP (though maby its GDP or one of those other figures, all fairly simular though) is nearly proportional to the equal distribution of wealth. Meaning as a nations economy grows and produces more products, the difference in wealth between the poor and rich actually decreases. This can be easily observed in your 3rd world countries were there are ultra poor people starving everyday (few actually starving people in the US), while in the same country there are warlords, which are richer than you can imagine, in reality, richer than Bill Gates even. As there is a difference between being rich in a capitiolistic society, were you still have most of the rules apply to you. And rich in s different society were there are no rules period, and nobody questions you period.
Well the other way around, capitalism is just a part of economics. But it helps to give you an idea of the flow of money, and what it all really boils down too. I'm not really wanting to say that capitolism is the best, its just the best we have so far. And a good study of economics will aid in that understanding.
Thats called having a job, and doing something for money. Sure you can always build your own pool, especially if you run a pool building company, but you still have to buy the supplies nobody is just going to give you the supplies, just like nobody expects you to build them a pool for free. So you have to buy them, with money you earn from making pools for other people. And why do you say you shouldn't build the swimming pool in the first place? I don't understand, as you state there is virue in being poor, but I don't see the virtue in not having a job. Job=work you get paid for. Building a pool is part of that whole work thing you oviously don't understand. If noone worked you wouldn't have that nice pretty computer to sit and and chat with idiots like me. Now would you.
It's a "meeting of the minds" sort of thing. They agree to let you use their software, and you, in turn, agree to be bound by their restrictions. Don't like their restrictions? Fine, don't use their software.
-sk (oh yeah, IANAL, but I play one on Slashdot.)
Microsoft, who says all that is GPL is evil, ships GPL licensed GCC with their own Interix Unix to NT porting toolset.
http://www.microsoft.com/WINDOWS2000/interix/
Does this mean you cannot make use of interix to develop for this and other simliarly licensed MS code?
More importantly does Microsoft provide the customers with a copy of the Microsoft modified source code for the above and any other GPLed products?
The passage above also seems to cover using GPL'ed software to develop your own software ("recipient software") that includes Microsoft's toolkit. But it's not exactly clear to me how this works.... Microsoft's product is not itself distributed as source, so what exactly would recipient software you create that includes Microsoft's toolkit (in whole or in part) look like? Seems like a pretty special case scenario. Seems like the restriction, if it was only concerned with redistribution wouldn't need the clause restricting the use GPL'ed software to *develop* GPL'ed software that includes the toolkit in the distribution--you just need to disallow including the toolkit period. The whole restriction on using GPL'ed software is bizarre.
Is this intended just to be confusing to scare middle managers into forbidding their developers from using GPL'ed software? Penning GPL'ed and a handful of other open source licenses as "viral" certainly suggests that that is part of the motivation.
I'm not sure what the legalize in the EULA is actually trying to say, IANAL. However, it's their software and as far as I'm concerned they can license it however they please. Same as with GPL'd software, if you don't like the terms of the license don't use the software. It's just that simple (assuming you can understand what the license restrictions are).
FTP.EXE in NT4 (SP5) is
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
All rights reserved.
(This is the only copyright showing in the executable)
Is there any way that the use of the term viral in relation to free osftware could be construed as slander (if MS says it) or libel (if they write it in a license)? Defamation of who? FSF perhaps?
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
Do we "fully own" compiled output of Visual C++?
Looks like MS just wants to own all code and exterminate cods that it can't own.
You don't own their source code - their libraries (such as their implementation of STL, or the C runtime library, or ATL or so on and so forth).
So yes, you don't 'fully own' your compiled output (note: in some cases, you do). But Microsoft allow you to distribute their stuff with yours, so it's not an issue.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Which is why I find the thing so ridiculous. "Oooo, the GPL and the MPL and all these other 'open sores' licenses will force us to open all our code. They're a cancer to our business." Bull shit. That clause was never needed and is vague enough to require a lawyer's opinion if you are going to use the SDK with anything other than MS' development suite.
Section 1c is one of the few things that I've seen which deserves "-1 redundant."
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
c'mon, are you really telling me that you have ever even READ a EULA? I have asked some people in my group of friends and I don't know anybody that has ever read the entire agreement. If anybody here can honestly tell me they don't just hunt for the "agree" button I will be surprised.
You can find the word "viral" in their EULA..
Microsoft will connect the word "viral" to all that is GPL.
They will shout it more often and louder then we'll alltogether (the open source community) be able to deny it.
I need an aspirine and a continuum shifter so that I can change universe....
Have you taken out a licence from Microsoft to redistribute their EULA? It is their copyright, and they spent a lot of money writing it.
Fair Use. I'm allowed to quote paragraphs in order to discuss or review a text.
- bridgette
Seems fair to me. You can't Open Source MSFT components or use software that requires you to Open Source MSFT components.
That bit is reasonable, but you can't do that anyway. Even without this clause in the EULA you'd get smacked down hard and fast for even trying.
But look at these 2 clauses:
not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in whole or in part.
and later in the examples of "Potentially Viral Software" :
any software that contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any software that is distributed as free software, open source software (e.g. Linux) or similar licensing or distribution models;
So you can't redistribute DLLs from the SDK with your application if you used emacs, gcc, linux or mozilla *even as tools* in the production of your application. That's the unreasonable part.
- bridgette
distribute the Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with any Publicly Available Software
I think that this is just an example they provide, since they also say "By way of example but not limitation of the foregoing" right before they say that.
MS never prohibit using these tools. If they did, MS could be sued for product tying; and tool distributors could obtain an injuction to stop any distribution of this EULA dead in its tracks.
It's really difficult to say for sure, since the language of the EULA is a major headache, but here's why I think that they are either prohibiting the use of free dev tools with the SDK or trying to imply that they are:
(i) not distributing such Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with Potentially Viral Software (as defined below); and (ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in whole or in part.
Note that part (i) discusses distribution of the SDK and part (ii) discusses *use* of the SDK. Seems to me, part (ii) is saying don't use "Potentially Viral" tools to develop code that incudes any part of the SDK - whether or not it's being distributed!
Now this begs the question "what is Potentially Viral Software?" but there is no software in existance that meets their definition so that would imply that the entire clause is meaningless, right? But they then go on to imply that "Potentially Viral Software" includes pretty much everything under the sun (anything free, open, GPLed, etc.) in the "By way of example but not limitation of the foregoing" clause by saying you can't distribute with all the listed stuff.
It's very odd, they say -
(a) don't distribute our stuff with X
(b) don't develop using our stuff and X
(c) therefore you can't distribute our stuff with Y
This seems to imply that Y is a member of X and therefore you can't develop using their stuff and Y. But since the definition of X does not seem to really incude Y, it makes me wonder if (a) and (b) are really meaningless and the only actual statement is (c)?
- bridgette
Recipient's license rights to the Software are conditioned upon Recipient (i) not distributing such Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with Potentially Viral Software (as defined below); and (ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in whole or in part. For purposes of the foregoing, "Potentially Viral Software" means software which is licensed pursuant to terms that: (x) create, or purport to create, obligations for Microsoft with respect to the Software or (y) grant, or purport to grant, to any third party any rights to or immunities under Microsoft's intellectual property or proprietary rights in the Software.
... but no 3rd party can change M$ licencing. Period. No one can nullify the original M$ licencing terms by re-releasing under their own licence, so it's a completely mute point. A red herring.
... honest.)
They are deliberately trying to cloud the issue. They say that they don't want you to give away any of Microsoft's rights or try to put Microsoft under any legal obligations by distributing their SDK DLLs with "Potentially Viral Software"
But then they go on to take great zeal in knocking down the straw-man they just constructed:
By way of example but not limitation of the foregoing, Recipient shall not distribute the Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with any Publicly Available Software. "Publicly Available Software" means each of (i) any software that contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any software that is distributed as free software, open source software (e.g. Linux) or similar licensing or distribution models; and (ii) any software that requires as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of such software that other software distributed with such software (A) be disclosed or distributed in source code form; (B) be licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (C) be redistributable at no charge. Publicly Available Software includes, without limitation, software licensed or distributed under any of the following licenses or distribution models, or licenses or distribution models similar to any of the following: (A) GNU's General Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library GPL (LGPL), (B) The Artistic License (e.g., PERL), (C) the Mozilla Public License, (D) the Netscape Public License, (E) the Sun Community Source License (SCSL), and (F) the Sun Industry Standards License (SISL).
Kinda like the Allchin, Balmer and Gates rants: All we want is for publically funded development to not be released under the GPL - not like that *ever* happens - but now we'll use that as a segue into a reant on the evils of the GPL.
They are really pushing their luck, obligating people to not use a competitiors dev tools (emacs, gcc etc.) in order to use their SDK (which is often needed to develop apps for their OS) sounds like leveraging their monoploly to squash competition and playing dumb about it (Huh? We just didn't want other people to take away our licencing rights
- bridgette
So you can't redistribute DLLs from the SDK with your application if you used emacs, gcc, linux or mozilla *even as tools* in the production of your application. That's the unreasonable part.
Actually its a good idea, except that it really should apply unconditionally. The whole "DLL hell" problem is the result developers redistributing DLL's from their SDK.
Problem is that Microsoft should have done this 6 or 7 years ago (and ensured their own developers complied.)
What's even funnier is you resort to calling MS's license viral. As if the beloved GPL is not.
What utter rubbish. GPL compliers do not force you to use a specific licence with your applications or tell you what other tools you can and can't use. But this appears to be what Microsoft is using. That's nothing new they have been telling OEMs what software they can and can't preload with Windows for years.
IIRC, Microsoft Outlook is one of the biggest viral programs in existance.
For that matter the Office 2000 and MSIE installers are "viral". e.g. there appears to way not to install "Task Scheduler", "Web Folders", etc.
A coordinated attack on the GPL (for whatever reason you might speculate) using every means of communication they have. Looks like their latest 'innovation' is the use of the EULA as a spin-delivery device. Which makes sense, really, considering its apparent credibility. It is, after all, legalese. Anything a customer sees there is given instant legal credibility in his/her mind.
Assuming the average customer will even bother to read it in the first place.
It probaly is "Legal" for them to say that if you want to play with their toys you can't play with anyone else's, but it's probably ill-considered.
It's simply an extension of the way they have been treating OEMs.
As for it's legality any law making it legal would be rather mutually exclusive with a "free" society.
The software business appears to be one of the very few which will even attempt this sort of stuff.
I'm not sure I understand the mechanism, but is MS telling a person what they can and cannot deploy on their own property?
At the same time as moaning about open source being "viral".
Microsoft can do something useful, providing a textbook example of projection.
lets use the SDK and build all sorts of applications using free tools... release them under GPL, and flaunt it...
wanna bet they never prosecute?
... hi bingo
If the self-contradiction weren't so laughable, it'd make me retch.
Particularly ridiculous is the mention of "non-production purposes". So you could prototype with gcc, but when it came to deploy the app on your OWN SERVERS, you'd have to use a different tool? Ha, ha, ha. This EULA is a piece of shit and wouldn't hold up for very long if tested, which it never will be.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
I read it to say that you cannot distribute their product in conjunction with any open source software. That's completely different from saying you can't use it.
Perhaps I interpreted incorrectly. If that's the case, then I wonder how the average joe user is going to handle this legalese.
if(!toilet_paper) roll.replace(new roll);
No, they're intentionally misconstruing the GPL to slander it. Read the fucking documents some time.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
The GPL puts restrictions on restrictions. You can distribute, use, and link pretty much however you like. You just can't restrict others from doing so. Of course, there's a bunch of legal stuff along with it, but that's the gist of it. M$ puts restrictions on all of these things.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
But if they spread lies about other licenses, they should be rebutted. Further, if they restrict their customers' freedoms, they should be fought.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
"The GPL is, in places, so vague that 'interpreting' it can only be done by examining the entrails of freshly slaughtered animals. This vagueness is probably deliberate, and if the GPL is ever determined to be unlawful the vague wording will likely be the prime cause of its downfall."
1. It is in no way vague - you just can't read legalese. It was drafted by a *very* clever lawyer, and has been reviewed by lawyers at *countless* companies. The only ones who think it is unclear are the ones who are trying to find loopholes - they need an excuse for their failure other than "Eben Moglen is one smart dude".
2. Why would it be unlawful? Unenforcable, maybe... but not unlawful. And it *won't* be declared unenforcable - when companies in the past have inadvertently violated it, their lawyers have always determined that they would lose if they fought it in court.
"The GPL states that linking to GPL code is not allowed unless the code doing the linking is also GPL'd. That is explicit. That is the letter of the
GPL, that is the spirit of the GPL."
Exactly.
"That is, in some circumstances, clearly illegal."
No, it's not. It is be illegal to distribute non-free code (except in system libraries) linked to GPL code. This is the distributor's problem, not the GPL's.
"As a result, this EULA is equally explicit."
It also spreads several lies about the GPL. It claims, falsely, that code distributed *with* (not linked against) GPL'd code must be GPL'd.
"As a result, MS can smack you in multiple ways if you try to steal their code using the GPL. "
One cannot steal code using the GPL.
"It's entirely legal, and it is even justified."
Is it legal to maliciously spread lies about your competitors? I don't think so. Are these lies justified? No.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
Further, Microsoft's new license is full of lies about the GPL.
The new license says that the GPL requires separate works distributed with GPL software to be GPL'd, which is false.
This has always been M$'s complaint about the GPL - and it has never been true. Now, tho, Microsoft's software contains these terms!
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
Personally, I can't wait for this style of ``agreement'' to catch on in other industries; I'm looking forward with great anticipation to the day I have to take my lawyer with me to the grocery store to interpret the license on a bag of tater tots. It makes a feller glad to be alive.
-rpl
ISTM the reference to "Viral Software", given the normal meaning of such to be "malware" could be grounds for an interesting lawsuit. Doubtless entirely fruitless wrt result, but potentially very noisy for getting the word out that they're using a new sort of FUD .. I'm not entirely thrilled with the GPL etc. myself, but M$'s approach is ridiculous.
:)
Gee, maybe they just don't want anyone to discover the Back Orifice GPL'd source that per all evidence M$ used to develop the new Win2k admin tools
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Well, considering that they say you can't use any tools to develop software which fall under this clause:
(i) any software that contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any
software that is distributed as free software, open source software (e.g. Linux) or similar licensing or distribution models;
Then you can't even develop under NT...that pesky BSD TCP/IP code that NT contains would appear to make NT fall into the category of "Potentially Viral Software"
Uh, yeah. But while the EULA doesn't mention the BSD license specifically in their examples, the Open Source Initiative does list BSD as an open source license.
Even though MS doesn't consider the BSD license 'viral', their lawyers have outsmarted themselves with their broad definitions: "open source software...or similar licensing or distribution models" I'd say that covers BSD as well....
If you think that development on MS platforms just got 100 time harder and more expensive, I invite you to take the opportunity to move to an easier and cheaper platform that doesn't suck.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
But then it's not exactly "free" in the FSF sense of the word then, is it?
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Maybe it's only hard to find in that jungle, but i didn't see a way out of the license, once you accepted it. It should be covered somewhere under 4) i think. There's an easy way out of the License for MS, at least.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
Maybe MS should go one step further, and go "VIRAL" itself (e.g., that anything you develop with THEIR SDK has to pass down this same restriction, so that YOUR USERS can't use "Publicly Available Software" either)! Why not go all the way?
They'd have to make it compatible with their own license then, else the license would work against itself, since the SDK Software (under a viral license) couldn't be used for development/distribution with itself (since its license prohibits its use with viral Software)
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
I read c) ii) that you may not use open source tools for developping any Recipicient Software that includes the Software. Maybe i read that so because it's standing there, or it's just a thing with the legalese tricking my eyes. But forbidding to use development tools in developping software including theirs (which, to my understanding, would mean you may not even look at their Source with emacs if you're developping on their code) seems taking things a bit far.
c)i) seems fair enough, although it would have been sufficient, to restrict any distribution under licenses that would alter the Microsoft EULA.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
Now you can use all kinds of Plaecholders in legalese texts i suppose, but 'Viral' doesn't make it sound like a nice thing. But if this hits the news big enough, then people will associate the term 'Viral Software' with anythying Linux. As enough people don't know the difference between virus, worm, or trojan horse, that is about as bad as it can get.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
Microsoft is going to try to spin this by saying that they are not trying to prevent people from adopting Open Source, but to protect themselves from licensing problems. I think there was a thread a while ago about what would happen if an MS drone used some GPL'ed code in Windows. They'll say that this is what they're trying to prevent. I'd give them the benifet of the doubt IF it wasn't for the following line: "ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in whole or in part." Meaning you can't use GCC to compile the resultant program. Since no existing OSS license automatically places its output under said license, this clause is entirely an attempt to keep people from using GPL'ed development tools (and thus threatening their precious Visual Studio.) MS is making mistakes now. They're freaked about open source and their not reacting in the most subtle way possible. Their tactics would work if they were trying to go up against another big company like Sun, but directly going up against a community of developers is not good image. If they want to take out Linux, they're going to have to fire their stragegists and hire some people who know how to fight guirilla style.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Last I recall, Trolltech and KDE got a huge amount of flak for KDE's distributing non-GPL Qt with the GPL'ed KDE. Where was your idea then? Don't pretend that this stuff doesn't happen, because it does. A lot of GPL software writers are very anti-proprietory software and that causes problems when the two are mixed. The writer of dietlibc, for example, urges people not to port his software to Windows. The OSS community trying to pretend that they are totally innocent and being taken advantage of is just as much bullshit as MS pretending that OSS software will destroy "freedom-loving corporate America." (slightly paraphrased...)
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Don't be daft. You know you can't return MS software for refunds.... they just won't give them to you.
The interesting part of this, to me, is the use of the term 'potentially viral software' directly in the license terms. Thus, during litigation, the term would be bandied about in evidence, and during testimony, and so on.
.NET as a 'potentially viral software platform' in a license because it would be a nice way to propagate virii would be good. It muddies the opponent's attempt to set the tone of discourse, and at the same time makes a pointed comment about the traditional MS tactic of using their control of de-facto standards to 'virally' force other developers to support their initiatives.
Back when I did debate in school, we called this 'setting the terms of the debate', because terminology has a huge impact on how the judges think about the issue.
It's not very subtle, in this case, but it will have an impact. A useful response is to hold such terminology up to scrutiny as an object of ridicule. For instance, referring to
The important thing, of course, is to do it right away before the this 'potentially viral' thing gets into common use as a term.
No, you've seen EULAs that figuratively say they get your first born. Eschew hyperbole.
They are very clever. First they propose a bogus notion of what Open Source and even the GPL/LGPL is and isn't about and does and doesn't require. Next they act as if their own slander and misrepresentation is true and put "protection" against the bogus danger in their contract. This can lead the way for other vendors doing work with Microsoft to infect their own contracts with similar bogus concerns and restrictions. To top it off they get /. to propagate their viral anti-OpenSource license.
Damn clever little monkeys.
If it's just a standard prelease agreement, why is there anything in it about open source at all? Why not just say no distribution? Since the restrictions targeting open source have nothing to do with the software's beta-ness, it doesn't seem completely unreasonable to fear that the same restrictions will be in the final version.
Sure, it may be enforceable. You're certainly free not to use the MS modules if you don't like it.
On the other hand, it does not appear to be NECESSARY in order to protect MS's intellectual property rights, and should certainly not be seen as some kind of "best practices" licensing model!
*IF* parts of the MS SDK got incorported in the end product, and *IF* the GPL'd product were used in such a way the the resulting schmeer (end product) constituted a "derivative work" of the GPL'd product, then, yes, the GPL might well require source code availability for the resulting end product work, including the incorporated elements of the MS SDK.
However,
First, this type of situation would not result merely from, say, using Emacs to edit a program. Or even gcc to compile it (isofar as, in that case, the LGPL would apply).
Second, if this situation DID arise, it would simply highlight the fact that there was an incompatibility between MS's license and the GPL (surprise?). The "perpetrator" might be contractually obligated to the FSF to publish the entire source, but would STILL be liable to MS for breach of contract and/or infringement for doing so as to the embeded MS elements. So in the absence of this clause, our user/developer would not actually "get away" with anything.
It is not clear to me, therefore, why MS or anyone else would NEED to put in a provision like this in in their license agreement in order to prevent their software from losing IP protection.
Of course, if what you REALLY wanted to accomplish was to deny the availability of your proprietary software to anyone in the free software camp, for example, if you thought free software was a BIG THREAT, then you might well come up with an agreement like this to force the issue.
Maybe MS should go one step further, and go "VIRAL" itself (e.g., that anything you develop with THEIR SDK has to pass down this same restriction, so that YOUR USERS can't use "Publicly Available Software" either)! Why not go all the way?
MS probably just sees itself as fighting an aggressive license agreement (the GPL) with one of its own -- fighting fire with fire.
Now, if MS started doing this in all of its licenses, it could be pretty polarizing. I could see it leading to widespread corporate edicts (or attempted edicts) to banish open source. Or users could push back, or simply ignore either these provisions, or the fact that their people are using free development tools (Don't Ask, Don't Tell).
Could be war. . . but probably not.
--Ron Abramson (ra@panix.com)
And not legally binding since they've managed to void their own license. Hhehehe!
cnet quoted you, chief.
Someone you trust is one of us.
how is this any different from the limits on distributing the VB runtimes, or necessary proprietary DLLs?
Isn't it just a little ironic for a open source advocate to be questioning if a restrictive software license is legal? After all GPL does require you to give away the source to your software if you use GPLed source, or staticly link to a GPLed application.
I suspect that the "tools" you aren't supposed to use are GPLed libraries. They don't want you using any libraries which might require the source to the finished app to be "open". The reason I suspect this is that requireing that you don't use an editor which is licensed under GPL doesn't make any sense. It isn't workable and isn't enforcable. How is anyone going to know what editor you used? It seems like the license isn't that clear, and those who believe Microsoft is evil incarnate are enjoying another chance to get up on their soapbox.
The GPL only covers distribution of the software in question, and explicitly grants you rights that you would not have under copyright law (namely, ability to publish and distribute the code or derivative works without compensation to the author).
The GPL is implemented through Copyright law. Most licenses do use copyright to restrict the use of the software in derivative works. Microsoft's EULAs definately restrict the end user, but so deos the GPL. It allows you to do what the author wants to allow you to do, and prohibits you from doing what the author doesn't want you to do. I was just pointing out that Segan's original post questioning if the EULA was legal was a little narrow minded considering the limitations that GPL places on developers. The GPL can be very restrictive for people developing binary software. More specifically it can be a pain when writing Linux drivers in which giving away the source would violate NDAs.
So Microsoft finds out that you've got GPL software on your computer. IANAL, but I don't think they can sue you for $, they would have to prove damages. They could revoke your license. That would really suck, and would be very stupid for Microsoft. Microsoft has gotten where they are by encouraging developers to write code for their OS. Of course that means that a lot of this license is just confusing and unnecessary. This license is for a beta sdk. I'm wondering if they've thought it through yet. I bet it changes before the final release of the SDK. Just my guess.
While similar clauses to "...Recipient may not reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble any portion of the Software, ..." have existed in past Micro$oft licenses, this could have some consequences.
It's obvious that Samba is one of the greatest arguments for deploying Linux file-servers over the proprietary alternative(s), but, advances in the authentication schemes in a Micro$oft client/server environment, such as Active Directory and Passport will require more work. If this license, in conjunction with the Open Source disclaimers makes it into the final release, or exists in WindozeXP, it could be argued the Samba team has to cease development that will make Samba compatible with future releases of that software.
Clearly there is a message, here. Remains to be seen who will listen to it, and, what they do with it if/when they do...
Linux rocks!!! www.dedserius.com
www.dedserius.com
VB != VisualBasic
The license terms are, in my reading, reasonable, but the use of the word "viral" in this context is inexcusable propaganda. Would it be possible to rewrite OS licenses such that Microsoft products were categorized as "Septic Software (as defined below in section 1.3.9.2 part c)"?
mt
When Don Box (one of the designers of SOAP) presented sessions on SOAP and XML at Microsoft's TechEd Europe conference last year, he used Emacs for all of his demonstrations. I guess he won't be demonstrating the Mobile Internet Toolkit this year...
--
You think their license sucks? Great. Fine.
Go out and make your own SDK and open-source it. It's still a free world.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
Another nail in the coffin ... but we cannot yet be sure whether it is the coffin of Microsoft, or of Free Software.
They can put whatever they want in their EULA but can they actually enforce it? IANAL, but...
This claim (can't be used with GPL'ed software) is forbidden by the Clayton Antitrust Act. It basically says that you can not forbid a customer from using a competator's product. This is like saying that you can't use third-party ink cartiges in your printer without voiding the warrantee. Since this claim is illegal, this part of the EULA in unenforcable and, possibly, the entire EULA.
They also seem to be claiming ownership to output created with their SDK, which is another intresting tidbit.
On the brighter side, this might be enough ammunition to break up Microsoft for good.
Shrinkwrap licenses are generally considered binding.
No, lacking UCITA, my understanding (IANAL) is they are NOT, because they aren't visible until after the purchase is made. Lacking UCITA, retroactive changes (e.g. changing the terms after purchase) doesn't cut it. This is why UCITA is such an evil piece of shit. Under UCITA, crap like this would be legally binding.
--
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
Its interesting how in the last few years we've gone from owning software to licensing it.
"Interesting" isn't the word I'd use. In any event, this is one of the key advantages of Free (as in FSF or 'liberated) software. It is why I am rapidly becoming opposed to the use of proprietary software of any kind. (Not that I don't use it, but I'm minimizing that use.)
--
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
Playing devil's advocate for a minute and flirting with The Dark Side (tm), what about creating open source licenses that forbid any porting of software under said license to wany microsoft operating system (or .NET, for that matter). Should it be done? Talk amongst yourselves, I'm getting verklempt.
Microsoft killed OS/2 partially by threatening to effectively cut off companies pre-loading OS/2 from cheap copies of Windows. The IBM PC Company in particular knew that most of its customers wanted Windows so they stopped pre-loading OS/2. This is probably the first step in an attempt to similarly cut Linux distributors off. I'm sure at some point a MS Windows EULA will insist that a GPLed OS not be installed on the same system as a Microsoft OS.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I think that Microsoft's software is widespread enough to count as "publically available"... I mean, they're giving it to the public in return for money, right? They offer it to anyone.
So, if you can't use any "publically available software" to develop with this SDK, and Microsoft's software is publically available, then what CAN you use?
hehehehehe
-----
"Any software whose terms of use attempt to hinder ethically-challenged corporations from taking it and attempting to pass it off as their own work."
See also Copyright, Violation of.
One behavior that indicates that a competitor is reacting to you is that they change a long time successful strategy. This is even better if the change of behavior appears to be reactionary and counter-intuitive. Microsoft has had tremendous success with embrace and extend. To now change to a Microsoft or else stance with Open software is not inline with their previous success. In addition, this is a reactionary move directed at open source which may indicate that Microsoft is struggling.
My take on this new EULA is that you simply cannot distribute the software with an open source project. It is no longer freely re-distributable. This just causes additional work for the end user that can easily be pinned on Microsoft. I am sure they can try, but Microsoft cannot stop open source software from interfacing with theirs. The license is granted to the end-user running the software, not the interfacing software or team.
Won't it be fun if Microsoft changes the Windows license so that Open Source software is not allowed to run on Windows? :)
Lastly, Microsoft is the one who showed that developer support of your platform is a requirement for success. People go where the applications are. BeOS (and many before them) showed that you can have a great operating system, but users need to be able to do something with it other than boot. By alienating developers, Microsoft could jeopardize this principle. What if the next killer app is Open Source. The team that builds it patents it, but releases the patent to GPL, but not Microsoft. If Microsoft can make their EULA not allow Open Source, we can make Open Source software that is not allowed to run on Microsoft. "Want to run the latest killer app? Sorry, not on a Microsoft OS, but you can run FreeBSD as your desktop for free. Application Support? Oh yeah, we have word processors, a great GUI, image editors, multimedia, and a rock solid server OS." Sucks to be Microsoft. :)
If Microsoft wants to try and pick a fight. Let them. Who cares. Let them fight the war. Me, I'm going to go on with my life.
HPV - human papillomavirus
also, much talk about testing GNU licenses in court -- has a M$ license ever been tested in court?
This software is free to use and distribute as long as it isn't used in conjuction with Potentially Viral Software. Potentially Viral Software is defined to be any software that can potentially contain a Word macro virus; MS Word, MS Excel, Wordpad, MS Powerpoint, Outlook Express, or any other product created that supports Microsoft OLE, ActiveX, COM, DCOM, or similar/derivative technologies.
This doesn't restrict who uses it or even how they use it (note I didn't say Windows above), it just restricts the tools that can be used with it (which is what M$ is attacking anyway).
All their failure to play nicely with open source is going to do is force open source developers to code replacement tools or build replacement hardware (Linux is gaining ground quickly in embedded systems).
These new products that MS forced the development of can only hurt MS's market penetration, even if it is only by one or two users, that's still a loss.
What could they POSSIBLY have to gain from this? Isn't overzealousness what most non open source fans hate most about open source fans? Does not the pendulum swing both ways.
With RMS telling developers they HAVE to release source and MS telling them that the CANNOT release source, how long before the developers say 'Screw both of you!' and all shift to MacOS X?
When given ultimatums, I always choose the opposite of what the person issuing the ultimatums wants me to do. I guess I WON'T be renewing my MSDN membership! Yes, it appears to me that MICROS~1 is shooting themselves in both feet with their current initiatives, but only time will tell...
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
This just seems like one more indication of Microsoft's self-destructive behaviour. They appear to be betting the company on the .NET initiative, but as I see it, the success of .NET depends on other companies trusting Microsoft to take care of thier data, and trusting Microsoft to NOT use the fact that they control the servers that the data is stored on for Microsoft's competitive advantage. Now, given Microsoft's past history, and given the fact that the Microsoft octopus is expanding into so many different areas that potentially EVERY high-technology company will become a direct competitor with Microsoft in some field, ask your self: "Do I trust Microsoft with my data?" Then ask yourself how many successful companies are going to answer "yes" to that question. My suspicion is that any company naive and gullible enough to fall for the .NET/XP trojan horse hook, line, and sinker probably is too poorly managed to stay in business for long anyway. Prediction: .NET early adopters will experience a phenomenon simular to the .com fiasco, e.g. 80% will be out of business within 2 years. Sell any MSFT stock you still own now...
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Look, we all know that McSoft has a level of hubristic arrogance that is rare outside of greek tragedies. It probaly is "Legal" for them to say that if you want to play with their toys you can't play with anyone else's, but it's probably ill-considered. The practice of restrictive licensing may not be all that smart in that this will probably spur the use of other toolkits (java and IBM both have mobile agent frameworks out there) and have the opposite effect. On the other hand the truly paranoid could make a case for the idea that they are testing the waters, and will soon be busting Cygnus for porting the GNU toolset to XP.(yucko)
All this hostility towards open source software...you'd almost think they weren't hosting HotMail's DNS with FreeBSD. Almost.
-Legion
I think you're right, and the authors of the license didn't realize how it could apply to text editors, etc. But as for it not being workable or enforceable, it could be powerful tool if used right. Microsoft audits their customers to see if they have unlicensed copies of Microsoft software. They could add to the audits a check for GPL software. If GPL software is found on the same machine as this SDK, it could be viewed as presumptive proof that the license has been violated. Not good enough for court, perhaps, but these negotiations never go to court. ... I better make sure."
Thus the friendly Microsoft rep tells the IT department, "When we're auditing you next month, make sure you get rid of any GPL stuff, because we have to count that as a license violation." And the IT guy says, "We're not using any GPL stuff. Oh wait
So Free Software, which has been quietly seeping into large organizations, becomes a problem on IT's radar.
You seem to be thinking in terms of the individual developer, midway between Microsoft and GPL worlds, who might be repulsed by Microsoft revoking his license, thus pushing him into the GPL camp. However, I'm thinking of a corporate environment where Microsoft is the official standard but GPL stuff has seeped in all over the place. Management doesn't care once they realize it's not shareware and they have no obligations. However a license like this could make management care.
That said, I agree with the beta nature of the license.
By way of example but not limitation of the foregoing, Recipient shall not distribute the Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with any Publicly Available Software.
There is no "Publicly Available Software" on this list which is "Potentially Viral" when used as a tool: their description of "Publicly Available Software" as "Potentially Viral" only applies to distribution
software which is licensed pursuant to terms that: (x) create, or purport to create, obligations for Microsoft with respect to the Software or (y) grant, or purport to grant, to any third party any rights to or immunities under Microsoft's intellectual property or proprietary rights in the Software
They list a number of open source "Publicly Available Software" licenses which they say are "Potentially Viral" -- but only in the context of distribution:
By way of example but not limitation of the foregoing, Recipient shall not distribute the Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with any Publicly Available Software [my bold].
If you look very closely, they never actually claim that the use of any of these tools is potentially viral.
This is in fact just as well for MS.
If they had tried to block the use of the (non-viral) open-source tools, this would be an example of product tying. The tool distributor could then have sued Microsoft for trying to use its dominance in the OS market to reinforce its position in the tools market. They could also have applied for an immediate legal injuction to stop any further distribution of the licence -- effectively grounding MS's toolkit.
Sadly, it seems MS's licence doesn't actually prevent people from using open source tools.
These dev tools are not prohibited.
All the Open Source "Publicly Available Software" licenses (A) to (F) that they cite are listed
[my bold]MS never prohibit using these tools. If they did, MS could be sued for product tying; and tool distributors could obtain an injuction to stop any distribution of this EULA dead in its tracks.
The important point that it is only in the context of distribution that MS claim the open source "Publicly Available Software" licenses (A) to (F) are "Potentially Viral":
[my bold]MS never claim that the use of tools under licenses (A) to (F) is Potentially Viral -- manifestly it is not.
It is important that MS never prohibit using these tools, because if they did MS could be sued for product tying; and tool distributors could obtain an injuction to stop any distribution of this EULA dead in its tracks.
I'm not sure about that -- a binding contract requries witnessess, notary, etc ... I don't think opening a package counts as a signature ... if it does we have a fucked up legal system. What if I goto a highschool, and give some (underage -- so he can't legally enter a contract) kid 5$ to open MY copy of SoftwareX, then I go and install it?
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
Point being, if I'd known I couldn't put a desk lamp on my desk, prolly wouldn't have bought it :)
EULA's are in the same position -- they don't wanna tell you what shits they are until you've spent your money -- and they can't stop being shits because they've built a whole house of cards on the "software license" business model.
Its interesting how in the last few years we've gone from owning software to licensing it.
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
I'm sure it won't be long before a bill (UCITA?) tries to make them legally binding ... but right now ignorance is bliss
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
I don't recall hearing any debian nazi's complaining about progeny....
Fish
With this eula I have to buy a pig in a poke, so no thanks.
They don't have to support anything anyway - read the EULAs.
----
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
And I wasn't only talking about betas fpr support, MS don't support win 95,98 any more - and that's fine I really don't expect them to, but there are (probably) millions of people still using 95/98 quite happily (well for the sake of this argument) and are unsupported. What is new isn't that software becomes unsupported, but that the user has to upgrade. Previous MS betas have been time-limited and that's fine, buy it or stop using it, no problem. But I wouldn't have the choice to stop using it in this case. What concerns me is the possibility that MS may put these clauses in XP etc, because they'd love to make their users upgrade, got to find an ongoing revenue stream somewhere.
----
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
It's not FUD to consider the possibility that MS would use such a clause in another product(XP) - FUD would be saying that they are going to do so without any evidence. There is no FUD in speculating upon these possibilities. It's hard to deny that MS would like all users of non-supported version to pay and upgrade.
----
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
Most contracts I've signed don't have the proviso "When you don't like this any more you can just quit". Specifically, from the EULA in question:Nothing there about ending the contract except at MS choice. For a contract to be terminated there has to be provision for such termination, you can't just decide you don't want to play any more. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that because of the inequality in the contract it may be held unenforceable in court, but that's by no means certain.
Conversely from another, non-MS, EULA:
Oh, and since when did common sense have that much to do with law?
----
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
Precisely my point, I suspect it's probably unenforceable, but it is there.
----
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
It's only put into the EULA what is the law in most jurisdictions anyway, they may as well say that while you are licensed to use the software you are not allowed to break the speed limit. It is brilliant FUD, by prohibiting something which is illegal anyway they may frighten people away from any Free/OpenSource software. Brilliant.
The other, worrying, bit from the license:
I personally won't agree to a EULA that commits me to buy something where I don't know the price, and to install SW with no idea what it does. And we all know MS never release a duff service pack.....Oh - and you can only distribute (on the internet) via MS approved 'hosters', and that list is on the Visual Studio.NET web pages.:
That's a whole lot of commitment for a beta SDK.----
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
It may be the best thing for my NT suffering desktop, but that site just kills me. Crannnnnnnnk goes the hard drive until I finally put it out of it's missery.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
---
---
Really this is just a trial ballon that MS is floating. If no huge cry of protest goes up, expect to see this issued as a EULA in a great deal of their software from now on.
Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.
Furthermore by adding this into their EULA, they're also attempting to force people to choose between MS and the rest of the world. In other words, its either Gate's way, or the highway. I wonder if any coding shops will change their practices because of this...
Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.
From the EULA: Seems fair to me. You can't Open Source MSFT components or use software that requires you to Open Source MSFT components.
--
Not true at all, the UCITA does NOT make the GPL work, it just makes clickwrap licences work. The GPL works on this idea, you can use the software personally and do whatever the fsck you want to with it, you don't need a licence to use the software, if you bought it/obtained it legally, then you have a right to use it, but you do NOT have a right to distribute it because it's COPYRIGHTED, i.e. only the creator has a right to distribute it. All the GPL does is GIVE you the right to redistribute it UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, if you don't accept the GPL, YOU MAY NOT REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM/WORKS/ETC.
Rainman, sitting at a table. "Must compile code. Used NT to write it. NT has open sourced BSD networking code in it. Can't compile code. Can't compile code. Definitely can't compile code."
As for "intellectual property," there is no such thing. The very term is an oxymoron: nothing 'intellectual' can be property, to be traded or sold. Once you express an idea, it's no longer just your idea. But you still have it...it's just that someone else also has it. There's no loss involved, nothing 'stolen' -- to steal something is to take it away, deprive someone of something such that they no longer have it. You just can't do that with ideas and knowledge (short of a blow to head causing brain damage).
You cannot buy and sell ideas and intellectual knowledge, because you cannot take back an idea, or knowledge, once you've communicated it to someone.
See, I thought Outlook was more viral in that as soon as some jackass executive gets it in his head that it's the best thing ever to happen to scheduling it's suddenly on everyone's desktop...
...and immediately afterward the computer starts bleeding from the mouth and rectum...
Not quite true. You can build anything you like with it without releasing the source. You're only required to release the source if you release the binaries. Take Apache for example, modify it all to hell and put it to running your web server. You don't have to release the source. Allow others to use your modified copy for their servers, however, and THEN you have to give them the source as well.
GPL can fairly be described as being viral, even by an advocate (such as myself), and doesn't "protect" against anything.
The GPL allows you to release your code to others fairly safely. Sure, it's backbone comes from copyright laws but to say that it doesn't protect anything is splitting a pretty fine hair.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
The way I read this is that even if I pay for the toolkit, I may not use it if I distribute any GPL'd software.
So, if my shop sells one RedHat CD, I can not use the SDK for developing anything! This gets horribly close to free speach issues, and very close to "reasonable conditions". IANAL, but probably this kind of clause would be laughed out of the court here in Denmark! Someone want to try?
In Murphy We Turst
I've heard of this kind of scheme before - the biggest unanswered question is:
"Where is the money?" (reference to Psygnosis' 'Blood Money' intended)
If my enemy's enemy is my friend, what happens if my enemy is his own worst enemy?
Yep, you yanks are going to be really screwed, I think the signs are far better here in the EU that MS would find no legal support, and if they withdrew their products (or raised the price) government money would come flying out of the woodwork to tell the to "Fuck Off" in no uncertain terms. You think the top European interests want to pump all that software money over to the US?
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that Microsoft isn't legally bound to obey the terms of its own license ... you know, it is *their* software, they can do what they like with it.
--
The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
Amazing! They even put FUD into their licenses now. Free Software and Open Source licenses are distribuition licenses, not usage licenses. The GPL has no restriction whatsoever on who can use the software and for what purposes. It certainly does not require those using it to release any software they have written in source code form (or any form, for that matter). In fact, section 2 of the GPL states:
Restrictions only come into play when a developer redistributes a program containing GPL (or other free-licensed) code. The MS lawyers are certainly smart enough to understand this, and yet, they lie anyway. As other posters have mentioned in previous articles, MS itself distributes the gcc compiler.Relax. Take a pill. If you don't like Slashdot, go elsewhere.
"Is this legal?" Stop asking this question on slashdot! Someone's gonna get hurt, purely by accident! And someone knowledgable could speak the absolute truth and it'd either be moderated incorrectly or someone would misinterpret it. Ask a lawyer if it's legal, not slashdot!
Peace,
Amit
ICQ 77863057
[o]_O
Over and over again, I have posted on slashdot, describing alternate descriptions for the GPL's behaviour. Being a programmer, I prefer descriptive mathematical terms, such as: "recursive" or "inductive". Calling the GPL a recursive license is far more descriptive and accurate than calling it viral. Mathematically, induction and recursion are very closely related, and so, induction is also a very good term for describing the nature of the GPL.
Hell, if Microsoft wants to come up with scary words for describing how the GPL license spreads, they are better off calling the GPL a "pokemon" license because I have been seeing far more pokemons than virii, amongst young kids these days.
Instead, I think MS has not thought carefully enough about the possbility that this new EULA could form the basis for a copyright misuse claim -- which would invalidate at least that provision of the license and possibly even render MS' copyrights in the SDK unenforceable.
The copyright misuse doctrine is very old, and derives from the concept of patent misuse -- to my knowledge, it has not been tested in any appellate court decision involving software. The basic idea is that the U.S. government is granting a monopoly by issuing copyrights; eg. the owner of a copyright has a legal monopoly to copy, distribute, license, sell, prepare derivative works, etc. As with any monopoly, however, if the monopoly holder abuses its power and attempts to extend one monopoly (the right to control the underlying software) into another monopoly (say, the right to control .NET development protocols, processes, toolkits, etc.) then the patent (or at least potentially the copyright) can be invalidated for misuse. It seems to me there are several arguments that that is exactly what MS is doing here -- taking the legal monopoly to the SDK granted by the U.S. government and trying to extend that into an illegal monopoly over .NET processes.
"Potentially Viral Software"? You can't BUY FUD like that!
icqqm [ICQ:11952102]
From the link
You must have scripting enabled in order to view this site. Please modify your browser's settings accordingly.
Translated:
Move along! There's nothing here for you to see
I'm sorry, but the original subject line keeps reminding me of this exchange between the Trade Federation Viceroy and the (soon-to-be) Emperor from Episode I: :)
Viceroy: "My lord....is this...*legal*?"
Emperor: "I will *MAKE* it legal."
Or, more appropriately, vs. Slahdotters.
Bear with me for a moment. Remember this old Shel Silverstein poem?
I'm being eaten by a boa constrictor
A boa constrictor
A boa constrictor
I'm being eaten by a boa constrictor
And I don't like it one bit.
Oh, gee,
He's up to my knee.
Oh, my,
He's up to my thigh.
Oh, fiddle,
He's up to my middle.
Oh, heck,
He's up to my neck.
Oh, dread,
He's up to my hauurrgggmmmmmmmphhhhhhhr.
It's funny. It's funny because the guy keeps complaining about what's happening to him, he doesn't like it, he knows it's going on, but he doesn't bother to do anything about it.
Right now, Microsoft is eating the GPL. And no one is doing anything about it but complain in posts on slashdot. (This is not one of those posts -- this is a post complaining about the complainers.)
If you really care about this, why are you whining about it here? Nobody here likes Microsoft anyway! Go to the Yahoo! or Motley Fool MSFT boards and tell the investors. Go to your boss and ask him if he knows about the next dirty trick Microsoft is trying to pull. Tell your parents, who know how to use e-mail but don't know any better about Microsoft.
Microsoft will only be able to swallow all of us if we let 'em.
Here is the relevant part of the EULA
How would you enforce these kind of restrictions?
** The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not reflect those of my employers - past, present, or future**
Use a credit card to buy it and do a charge-off. That should be legal, as you are cancelling payment for a product in which there is, according to the EULA, a binding agreement, which binds both parties (contracts can not be unilateral) and includes among its terms a promise of a refund. When they breach their contract you can cancel it, returning the situation to that before purchase.
I am not a lawyer, ask one for real advice.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
sqlrob is correct, in his response to your post. I have seen EULA's that literally say they get your first born. I do know what literally means.
Well, yes, they can probably put whatever they want in it. I've seen EULA's that literally say they get your first born. That's not the interesting question. The question is-- what will actually hold up?
EULA's have severe limits. In Vault v. Quaid, it was held that an EULA can't infringe on federally protected consumer rights, such as noninfringing use, reverse engineering, and so on.
I found a rather interesting article dealing with copyright law vs. shrinkwrap licenses here. It's worth reading, since IP and EULA's seem to come up here quite often. It doesn't have an immediate interpretation of the current situation. However, it is evident that typically courts agree with the notion that EULA's cannot be used to artificially block legitimate competition, since that runs entirely counter to the purpose of the copyright laws they're predicated on.
Ha, nice troll. The scary part is, there are Mac zealots who talk this way, and believe it too.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
At the risk of repetition, here is Microsoft's definition of Potentially Viral Software:
"Potentially Viral Software" means software which is licensed pursuant to terms that:
(x) create, or purport to create, obligations for Microsoft with respect to the Software or
(y) grant, or purport to grant, to any third party any rights to or immunities under Microsoft's intellectual property or proprietary rights in the Software.
Ok, this makes sense. Microsoft is preventing people from redistributing the SDK in conjunction with software that is licensed under terms that could be predatory toward Microsoft's products. Microsoft is also stipulating that such "viral" software may not be used in the process of developing products that make use of their SDK. Great, good for Microsoft. They are covering their ass.
Microsoft, however, further states that Publically Available Software falls under this PVS category. Untrue. By using Emacs, for example, to create a source module that calls Microsoft's SDK, I do not infect that source module with a free license. Emacs is not distributed with licensing terms to the effect of "any source code produced with Emacs thereafter shall be Free Software." I can create anything I damn well please in Emacs.
What is really going on here? Is Microsoft really that afraid of PAS? Nope. They are hoping to scare developers away from open source by misrepresenting the contents of open source licenses. I'd bet a lot of proprietary developers have never even read the GPL, and they'll believe whatever Microsoft feeds them regarding open source.
So this SDK license is really serving two purposes for Microsoft: cover Microsoft's ass in case such "viral" software actually does exist somewhere (which I highly doubt), and also spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt amongst the diehard Microsoft developers regarding open source licensing conditions. It is a calculated misrepresentation of open source, and it's damned clever. By hiding this crap in a license agreement, Microsoft makes it appear that they are afraid of open source -- and therefore, other developers should also be afraid of it.
Very damned clever. I'm impressed.
I know several Microsoft developers who use Vim and Emacs. Since they write Microsoft software the SDK is always included with their products. So this license would in effect forbid Microsoft from releasing software where some of its own developers used Vim or Emacs to create software that was to be shipped as a part of the SDK.
Perhaps someone should immediately sue Microsoft for violating its own license and then force it to pay huge damages to itself.
IANAL, but if Microsoft wishes to prevent people from using free software to develop on their SDK, they probably can. You can either abide by their rules, use free software and hope you don't get caught, or just don't use their SDK. Since it's their SDK, they get to control how it's used. Although it seems extreme, and it -should- be illegal, I wouldn't count on them getting sued anytime soon...
I'd agree that section (i) says don't distribute under a 'naughty' license. I can understand that, it's their code, and if they don't want it GPL'd that's their business. What I don't understand is section (ii). So what if you use emacs/vi to edit you code? How does that in anyway effect the 'licence' status of the resulting code? It doesn't. I'm not really sure that that section of the EULA is really legal. It's certainly silly. Now MS is telling us what editor we can use to edit our code. Not that I care... I don't want their goofy little SDK anyway.
With all reasonable limits gone from what an EULA can demand of a user, I'm sure this is just the beginning. Next I expect to see MS forbid development of Free Software using their compilers or tools, and finally I expect to see a EULA forbidding even the *use* of such software on whatever the latest flavor of Windows is. Don't think it could happen? Why not? They can effectively outlaw Open Source Software on 95% of all PC's without ever having to buy off a single Congressman. Expecting everyone to jump to Linux is simply not going to happen - They know full well most people will behave like quiet little sheep, snuggle up to their little passport, and and stay where it's warm and safe.
Maybe it means something else in legalese, but the way I read it leads me to believe that you couldn't use, say, Emacs to develope software (they don't specifically mention the developed software's license). Basically, it seems to me like they're trying to force developers under this license to use only non-Free editors.
I hope it's just my lack of understanding regarding legalese at fault here, and I would hope that someone would point it out if my interpretation is way off-base with fact.
IANAL, but it would seem to me that software authors can release their work under any license they choose. So I'm free to release my work under the GPL, and MS are free to release theirs under their EULA.
--
Karma: Chameleon (you come and go)
The term software refers to the toolkit itself - NOT THE SOFTWARE YOU CREATE WITH IT.
Besides - you guys HAVE NO ROOM TO TALK. You dont want your free shit distributed with commercial stuff (debian anybody?) and it goes vice versa for them.
You have NO LEGS to stand on.
Gam
"FLame at Will"
I love idealists not because I am one, but because they make life bearable for pragmatists such as myself.
After reading this license, go back and read MS's FAQ on the GPL, but this time substitute the MS EULA in place of the GPL.
That will make you stop and think...
[/quote]
14. NOTE ON JAVA SUPPORT..{cut}..JAVA TECHNOLOGY IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND IS NOT DESIGNED FOR USE IN HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENTS REQUIRING FAIL-SAFE PERFORMANCE, SUCH AS IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, DIRECT LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES, OR WEAPONS SYSTEMS, IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF JAVA TECHNOLOGY COULD LEAD DIRECTLY TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE. Sun Microsystems, Inc. has contractually obligated Microsoft to make this disclaimer.
[/end_quote]
So the lesson here is: Guns don't kill people. JAVA kill's people!
(j/k)
---------------------------------
It says that you that you can't create software with it using tools that would obligate MS to release it's source code nor can you distribute the Toolkit with "Public Available Software" - this doesn't prevent you from using vi or gcc or any of the other crap that was contended in write. I don't like MS, but I like inaccuracy even less.
(ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software
IIRC, Microsoft Outlook is one of the biggest viral programs in existance. One need only look at the "ILOVEYOU" virus to see just how viral Outlook really is. So, I suppose you can't use Microsoft Outlook as an e-mail client while developing for the Mobile Internet Toolkit.
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
You cannot apply a license which grants to the licensee any rights which you do not possess. In Other (small) Words, the GPL CANNOT force Microsoft to release the source code for their libraries in this case because your application of the GPL to code which you do not own would be unenforceable. In fact, you might be held liable for damages...
but this implies that if I download the Microsoft SDK, develop some code against it, then release it under the GPL, or incorporate any GPL code, the GPL applies to the entire program,...
Nope, if you download the MS SDK and develop code against it, you CANNOT release it under the GPL. The GPL prohibits it. So why has MS got their knickers in a twist?
I don't know whether Microsoft's lawyers are this clueless, or if they're spreading FUD. If the latter, this is a new level of spin, even for them.
The GPL allows GPL'ed apps to use non-GPL'ed libs, IIRC...
if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
TCP/IP is under the BSD licence. which isn't 'viral' (ugh) in the way MS means....
if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
Well, the main question now isn't if ppl should be compensated or not. It is about if we should be allowed to use GPL'ed software to create closed code. Looks like MS want to stop GPL'ed software to get into the business world.... me thinks they're scared ;-)
if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
hmmm, you might have a point there....
if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
I bet that 2 letter code happened to be your state! BorlandInsider
Hmm... sure, the part about not allowing a developer to distribute with GPL seems reasonable enough on the surface. In fact it simply helps further enforce the terms of the GPL in this respect. It's the part about the tools that gets me.
You see, they want to say what tools you can/can't use when you're also using their software. To get at the core of the issue, here's an example:
Bob's new EULA:
You can use this software any way you like as long as you don't ever use any Microsoft software again. If you ever again use Microsoft software after agreeing to this license, you've broken it's terms and must quit using this software.
Also, you can't use this software if you have a blue desktop, eat meat, or happen to be of Anglo-Saxon descent.
To me, it seems obvious all of these things are ludicrous. At what point do we draw the line and say, "Those terms are un-enforceable?" Or perhaps do we revisit copyright and decide that the current legal trend of "licensing" doesn't make nearly as much sense as everyone seems to think it does.
I'd REALLY love to hear from a lawyer on what is and is not enforceable for copyright licensing. I'm curious about things in the past, now, and in the projected future.
Isn't this an anti-trust case waiting to happen?
It's specifically targetted at Linux and other Free or Open software, which ammounts to M$'s principal competitors. This sounds just like the Netscape case. ObIANALNDIPOOTV (Obviously, I Am Not A Lawyer Nor Do I Play One On TV), but I hope there's a lawyer out there looking at this. Red Hat just broke even, maybe they've got some money.... They also are one of the most clearly injured parties in this (not because they ARE Linux (they're not), but because they make money on Linux and are percieved to be the largest player in the Linux space).
Everything's been downhill since the TRS-80
Now, instead, they attempt to stop others from extending towards free software and embracing it.
Microsoft isn't worried about "protecting" anything here. The whole intent is to use the license text as one more place to spread FUD (and in this case, FUD with legal overtones) about using anyting "open source" or "free".
I mean, come on; They'd love to make it so you must agree to use (and thus buy) only Microsoft tools to work with their stuff (and god knows they try, by obfuscating their APIs and then documenting them incorrectly), but they'll take what they can get.
Good job pointing out interix, btw - I keep forgetting about it, and it's a *wonderful* example...
And, trust me, it's corporate customers that make microsoft their money. They could take or leave any home user (just so long as there's not a big trend) - but corporations that buy site licenses (at full price) for 100-100,000 copies of Windows, Office, etc, that's where the money is. And those are the people who, for fear of legal liability, have to at least try to stay in compliance with the licenses.
the monopoly case was bought off as of last November. check out opensecrets.org, click on George W. Bush's name, and do a donor search for "microsoft" and find out just how many MS execs "just happened" to donate large chunks of cash simultaneously (it's called bundling donations). Not that they didn't hedge their bets; there's a nice long list if you search for "Al Gore" as well, and all of this is just the hard, "official" donations.
What happens next is left as an exercise for the reader.
Licenses are fun. Around 1995, I filled in the warranty cards from several products and sent them to the respective publishers with a license offer. The license offered my consideration of products or services they wished to advertise to me in exchange for their agreement not to send me junk mail more than once a year. The company was to indicate its agreement to the license by using the two-letter code on the warranty card in the address of mail sent to me.
The warranty card was clearly marked in red that use of the two-letter code indicated agreement to the license. The license contained some additional terms. Some of them specified payments for exceeding the junk mail threshold or sharing my personal information. One of the terms was that any future software of the publisher I acquired was transferred to me subject only to copyright law and not any license.
Among other publishers, I sent one of these offers to Microsoft. They used the two-letter code to send me mail.
Licenses are fun.
If you refer to the GPL license at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html, you'll note the following:
2b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
IANAL but this implies that if I download the Microsoft SDK, develop some code against it, then release it under the GPL, or incorporate any GPL code, the GPL applies to the entire program, not just the modifications of the original GPL program. It is perfectly within the rights of Microsoft to prevent another license from superceding their own, or to allow users to be confused. This problem is exactly why LGPL was developed. For a program to be GPL, ALL OF THE SOURCE REQUIRED TO MAKE THE PROGRAM MUST BE GPL. You can't develop GPL code that works against non-GPL code, and distribute them together.
If you refer to the GPL license at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html, you'll note the following:
2b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
IANAL but this implies that if I download the Microsoft SDK, develop some code against it, then release it under the GPL, or incorporate any GPL code, the GPL applies to the entire program, not just the modifications of the original GPL program. It is perfectly within the rights of Microsoft to prevent another license from superceding their own, or to allow users to be confused. This problem is exactly why LGPL was developed. For a program to be GPL, ALL OF THE SOURCE REQUIRED TO MAKE THE PROGRAM MUST BE GPL. You can't develop GPL code that works against non-GPL code, and distribute them together.
No he's probably seen the ones that literally say that. People throw those in as jokes to see if people are reading.
this is just as legal as the clause under the GPL that states that you are not allowed to release GPL'd code under a license that would defeat the purpose of OSS. (IE. A license that forced a person to pay a monthly fee).
so that last statement by the person that submitted the story : IS THIS LEGAL? deserves the response: AREN'T YOU HYPOCRITICAL?
But you can't compile any code without #including headers from the SDK and linking with object libraries from the SDK. This means that anything you do with the SDK cannot be redistributed without redistributing the SDK in part (i.e., with object code from their libraries and code compiled from SDK headers).
Thus, it seems that even if all you do is use CVS to manage your source code, you can't redistribute anything that includes SDK headers or links with SDK object libraries. Tell me what you can redistribute?
This particular EULA only allows for the distribution of internal, non-production applications or external applications on approved hosts.
Then there is the provision against using open source. I'm not sure I understand the mechanism, but is MS telling a person what they can and cannot deploy on their own property? I can understand if they don't want a beta product to be used as a production tool (and this seems to be a EULA for a beta product). But I don't think MS CAN tell a person what they can and can't use in conjunction with the software.
That's like the manufacturers of Tupperware saying you can't use plastic wrap to seal their containers. Personally, I think this provision has lots of bark and no bite. Screw them.
FreeUser writes "This is a battle for our very freedom, and we should be neither complacent nor shy in informing others of exactly what is at stake."
Yes a battle for the freedom to make a living from software, which by definition requires ownership and the right to charge enough for the "service of developing" said software in it's per copy license. GPL does not advance or protect that right for small authors. Under RMS's mandate, making a living from authorship or development by maintaining rights of ownership and controlled distribution is evil. A small software developer, novel writer, musical performer, no longer needs to be afraid of corporate america stealing their income, but rather a vast movement which says that any IP you produce must be "free", or we will clone it, or pirate it, and destroy your attempt to make a living by creation and ownership of Intellectual Property (IP).
The problem is not GPL, but the vast mantra RMS has placed behind it, including a vast disrespect for individual rights (not corporate rights) to make a living off the authorship of IP.
The fact that a vast empire like MS is concerned, does not lessen the impact that the same brush & gun which the GPL community uses to destroy corporate IP ownership, it destroys personal freedom to make a living from IP too.
GPL is not bad, the fundamental philosophy of RMS and FSF is. RMS and FSF started this war against propriety rights - which might seem popular against Microsoft and AT&T - but as viewed by a small author attempting to feed my family it really stinks. If, or when, RMS, FSF, and GPL prevail and destroy all proprietary rights - they will have ruined my, and many other authors, proprietary rights too - and we will no longer be abile to make even a fair living thru the production of personally authored IP.
Without a question Microsoft is right to be concerned - RMS's will upon the market is clear - and it will sterilize the market for proprietary software ownership - for *BOTH* the large and one man shop authors. While the extremes of IP ownership have been to the benifit of corporate america, the backlash of the FSF against corporate proprietary rights will be carried mostly by small authors and developers.
Who actually pays attention to the EULA? Especially when it's quite dumb.
---
Comment removed based on user account deletion
A Simplified EULA
By Reading this license you agree that Microsoft Corporation does not want to be part of the Mobile Internet Market. You Furthermore agree that you do not wish to uuse this software. You must return this software for a refund.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
Just another example of MICROS~1 abusing their monopoly status to crush the competition. Anyone care to email this to that Judge who is expected to rule any day/month/year now? And another reason to stop using MIRCOS~1 software. Forbidding the use of free tools... right.....
-- "Perceptions create reality. By changing your perceptions you change your reality."
(OFFTOPIC) But has anyone notice how much press Microsoft has been getting lately at our favorite newspage? It seems that the Borg theme is right on the money(as it wasn't before :) )as the evil empire is slowly assmilitaing all /. news stories... I am seeing less and less news about Tux and everything that is *nix and starting to think maybe 'Resistance is futile...'
The worst vice is advice...
"It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
The open-source and free software licences do not create any obligations for Microsoft nor do they try to grant rights or immunities to Microsoft's intellectual property. So this doesn't apply.
They are only mentioned in an example, and (IANAL) examples cannot be legally binding (especially if they are incorrect). They just want to spread more FUD.
In addition, the example that they use is that "Recipient shall not distribute the Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with any Publicly Available Software." It doesn't prohibit, e.g. using "Publicly Available Software" to edit programs that you write. Just that you can't distribute programs linked to software that would require you to distribute all the source code, and linked to their library at the same time. This isn't anything new, because if you did that, you'd be violating the licence of the open-source/free-software library that you're using.
To get something done, a committee should consist of no more than three persons, two of them absent.
Ok, So I am going to play devils advocate for a moment. I Stress first that I absolutely do not agree with M$ on any of this crap. However, as a software company, distributing your respective widgets, would you want to support someone using your widgets in an environemnt you don't have any direct support/control for? We can all return to our days now, writing useful code on useful operating systems...or even in somecases writing useful code on thier useless operating system using another companies widgets and compilers.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Using MS Windows2006 XP SE Ultra Ass Whooping Edition: *attempt to install GCC 6.0* "Error: You are attempting to install Potentially Viral Software (PVS)(tm). Please call Microsoft at 1-800-WE-H8-GPL to explain yourself or Windows will be deactivated on next restart." Of course, this begs the question, why would I be using GCC on a windows system in the first place... ? ;)
-Colin
and what, the next time a big company comes along, we need to tweak the licenses for them?
I though viruses attacked other cells, causing them to produce replicas of the virus, often with mutations and somtimes pinching generic code.
dosn't this make m$ a virus?
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Microsoft complains that the GNU Public License places unfair restrictions on how code may be developed... and their response to this is to release a license that places unfair restrictions on how code may be developed???
That's already been done... it's called Linux. And it irks Microsoft to no end, which incidentally, is why they are using the word 'viral' so much. The are hoping to make people think of Linux (and anything that runs on linux) to be nothing more than a glorified virus.
Truth be told, it's Windows that is the 'viral' software. As soon as you install it on one machine, you suddenly have to have it on all your workstation, all your servers, all your PDA's, all your ... or you aren't living up to the "full potential" of Microsoft. OTOH, Linux (and other Free Software) strives to be compatible with whatever you want to use and however you want to use it.
Life has many choices. Eternity has two. What's yours?
To this planet?
Recipient shall not distribute the Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with any Publicly Available Software
It simply means that MS is giving you access to some of there source code and specifically stating you can't use THEIR SOFTWARE in the distribution or development of any open source software. Duh.
It doesn't mean you can't use open source tools to do whatever they are allowing you to do with their code.
Obviously common sense is not as common as it should be.
that's excellent. someone needs to h4x0r the microsoft site and change all the EULA pointers to point here instead!
sulli
RTFJ.
that includes you too, eh?
Rule 2: Never expect any real wit from anyone who assumes that my name is from ender's game. (Hint - check your Greek history bud)
once again, he who assumes that my name comes from Ender's game is sadly mistaken. Ender Sai was the name of a thief in the fourth chapter of Baldur's Gate. You met him after you invaded and destroyed a camp of big orcs (I think). Sorry if I confused you, but it's the truth.
to qoute a comment from k5:
Does that mean I can't use my WinCE pocket pc to log on to my Microsoft HotMail account???
--- Worst tagline ever.
Don't you love how M$ is trying to confuse a software license with a program that intentionally fucks up your computer. You and I know better, but to the average Manager / Joe Blow it would probably be a little confusing
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
yup, he's right...wtf is Ender's Game anyhow...a book?
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
Since when can you use Outlook to develop software?
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
The problem with that approach is that M$'s PR department makes mincemeat out of it. So whilst you can be logically correct in your argument you still lose out because you get the media misinterpreting the words and the man in the street drawing the wrong conclusions.
I think we should start a propaganda war back - which in the obtuse way of a M$ PR department you do slightly off the side and start to talk about their licencing conditions as deliberately restricting the quality of software and the GPL as an innoculation against that cancer.
So are we now all supposed to code using Micro$oft Word? :)
Make me laugh.
Why did they add this provision ?
Wasn't obvious that a person is not allowed to change the software license ?
Why the prohibition to use OpenSource tools ?
MOD THE CHILD UP!
Anyone developing "free" software should stipulate in their license that it can not be used in any way by Microsoft Corporation.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Love them or hate them, it is their EULA and they can do whatever they want... seabourn
Here's M$'s note on Java: NOTE ON JAVA SUPPORT. THE SOFTWARE MAY CONTAIN SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMS WRITTEN IN JAVA. JAVA TECHNOLOGY IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND IS NOT DESIGNED, MANUFACTURED, OR INTENDED FOR USE OR RESALE AS ONLINE CONTROL EQUIPMENT IN HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENTS REQUIRING FAIL-SAFE PERFORMANCE, SUCH AS IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, DIRECT LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES, OR WEAPONS SYSTEMS, IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF JAVA TECHNOLOGY COULD LEAD DIRECTLY TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE. Sun Microsystems, Inc. has contractually obligated Microsoft to make this disclaimer. There seem to be several licenses attached to Java, depending if you use the binary or beta versions. What's the opinion here? Couldn't Java be considered to be the widest used tool that is like Open Source (hey, it's free), but still somewhat proprietary (with regards to it's license)?
I wish someone would tell RMS that. Recall the KDE/QT debacle? RMS said that QT was in violation of the GPL because QT was linked with KDE.
In fact, RMS basically forced TrollTech to relicense QT to a GPL license.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Hmmmm. If MS broadens their use of this license to Windows or Office, things could get a little messy. I guess Apache and Win2k would be right out. And MS Office on Mac OS X would be impossible. And *gulp* NT comes with vi when you install some resource bundles ... does that mean I can't use non-viral licensed software on NT?!! (That last one was sort of a joke -- I take it the version of vi on NT isn't Free[dom] Software)
This license is an interesting shot back from MS, but it's clearly just to get us in an uproar. No way could they add this viral license to their OS or popular products. If they thought people were bad at obeying licenses now... If I had to guess, I'd say this "media-spin-cloaked-in-a-license" is just an attempt to get the term "viral license" into the collective lexicon -- or at least a few online rags.
Ruffin Bailey
It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
Here is the relevant Open Source section. Please note that "The Software" referrs to Microsoft's SDK, and will be highlighted in bold text.
While that may at first appear very drastic, one must consider what is being said: You cannot distribute the SDK, or any of its components/examples with Open Source projects. This says nothing of the runtime -- only the SDK itself. Basically you can't lump the SDK into a package covered under another license. We must also notice this little paragraph, which would seem rather important:
All told, this is fairly standard as a Microsoft prerelease/beta license agreement. They are giving you tools, code samples, documentation, etc... and you are agreeing not to distribute this SDK as part of any other projects, especially Open Source ones. You are also agreeing not to distribute any projects that you create, or use them in "production" systems. Now if the final release version of the runtime included these clauses, we should start raising some eyebrowes.
-- russ
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
Does this mean I can't use the MFC example editors to modify the code?
Would someone who is comment on whether this license defames the GPL et. al., and those who use it, to the point that it could be the basis of a suit against MS? This thing defines "Potentially Viral":
Had they left it at that, it would have been one thing, but by naming the five specific licenses as included in this definition, they assert that which is simply untrue. From my admittedly non-expert reading, nothing in any of the enumerated licenses could do that, unless Microsoft itself were to release the code under one of them, so all that's left is to prove that the lies are damaging to the plaintiffs, and that MS acted with reckless disregard for the truth. (If I remember the elements as explained to me by the last real lawyer I talked to on the subject of libel.)[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
Sometimes organizations become so abusive that they destroy themselves.
Bush's education improvements were
"The license will create FUD in the minds of it's recipients as to what tools they can use."
That is my opinion, also. Microsoft seems to be trying to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
It is interesting that Microsoft often acts like an emotionally disturbed 5-year-old: "Does not play well with others."
Bush's education improvements were
Is this SDK better than anything that free software offers? Can this SDK offer anything that free software doesn't?
Are we able to differentiate between MS's use of the word "viral" and the common stigma of the word "virus" in a way that the average joe office manager can understand? Are we prepared to make this distinction whenever possible?
Can we use this restriction against MS somehow? For instance, not allowing users of the SDK to incorporate LGPL libraries, for instance, doesn't make much sense on the surface, and could restrict the user from using stuff that (a) doesn't infect their own programs with the GPL, (b) cut off a user from great potential resources such as (fill in your favourite LGPL stuff here).
Can we take MS's attempts at creating confusion and use them against MS? For instance, the SDL is an LGPL library that incorporates some DirectX stuff. Does this mean that you're not allowed to use aids such as the SDL that help make DirectX easier to use, even if no proprietary code gets infected with the GPL with the use?
Where can we ask tons of questions like, "I really like Windows and I also really like Apache. This SDK licensing seems to suggest that I can't do Apache development for the Windows platform. Why is that? Why are you limiting developers this way?"
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Now how in the world can they prohibit such things. Jeepers. What will they think of next, a license which is a virus, infecting everything it touches?
information is immaterial
-Jared
information is immaterial
Better yet; it does the same when you click Yes.
information is immaterial
- Foo Antivirus would put Cygwin in quarantine. - XP will refuse to execute Emacs, warning it does not come from a trusted source. - You will be unable to connect to Postgres/MySQL. I might go wrong, though...
-------------------------------------
I see 57005 people
It seems like this could go in the same direction as the DeCSS, where the line for code/software is drawn in some arbitrary location.
This seems to me to be no less legal or reasonable than the GPL. All the pro-GPL arguments I read here about "nobody is forced to use ..." should apply to this license as well.
Slashdot always portrays Bill Gates as a Borg, well I guess he's assimilated the GPL weapon. Better start rotating shield frequencies.
Given that someone working for Microsoft (hereafter referred to as "God") has undoubtably used Open Source code written with the General Purpose License (hereafter referred to either as GPL or "That Nasty Stuff That Threatens Our Ability To Absorb Other Corporations And Person's Copyrights, Patents, and Trademarks"), Microsoft denies that any Microsoft software is in fact null and void of any licensing, since under UCITA we can be sued for violation of the GPL.
Not that we did that, no, you can't prove it, and really, it's not true. Please ignore the Penguin behind the Curtain Of Legality.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Here's something odd I found buried on an MSDN page at Microsoft. Apparently MS is prohibiting developers from releasing software created under an OpenSource license like the GPL. It's a license agreement to something called the "Microsoft Mobile Internet Toolkit Beta 2" but it goes on to speak about releasing software created with it and specifically about OpenSource:
Open Source. Recipient's license rights to the Software are conditioned upon Recipient (i) not distributing such Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with Potentially Viral Software (as defined below);
It goes on to describe Publically Availalble Software and Potentially Viral Software as:
Recipient shall not distribute the Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with any Publicly Available Software. "Publicly Available Software" means each of (i) any software that contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any software that is distributed as free software, open source software (e.g. Linux) or similar licensing or distribution models
As the maintainer of a free, OpenSource C++ DirectX wrapper (http://www.cdxlib.com), I don't think this affects groups like mine but could this be paving a way towards other MS tactics like this? I'm not sure how this affects us but would like to hear commments from the SlashDot community on this.
The full agreement can be found here:e ula_mit.htm
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdn-files/027/001/516/
I wonder how long it takes for Microsoft to start hiring guys to work for them wearing white plastic body suits. I admit that I prefer most of Office to most comparable software, but these people are acting less and less like a software company - and more and more like a government. It needs to stop.
By the way - did anyone else try to read that eula using Mozilla? Talk about sphagetti code!
political_news.c: warning: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type
What gives. I read their license and then I clicked "No" just for grins and M$ closed my browser window. That's not very nice.
Provide the world with questions about a liscense.
Encourage legal departments to carefully consider the ramifications of the vague and viral GPL.
Provide the world with answers to list of questions.
Package it all in a EULA that enjoins the use of liscense.
Force companies to carefully consider if EULA can actually prohibit them from using Open Source Software.
Hope all will give up because EULA brings MS legal threat into the equation.
They are not a monopoly though.
OSI Open Source definition reads: ;-)
9. The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software. [italics are mine].
This is obviously an attempt to make something which can never be approved as an Open Source license. MS is learning fast, don't you think?
my other sig is a 500 page novel
in the simplest sense this is no big deal, MS has done nothing wrong and in fact haven't made any real changes to the liscence except the explicitness of its wording, however... can nothing be done to stop their 'badmouthing' of the GPL? as their FUD snowballs it is creating an uphill battle for acceptance for GPL'd code. i don't think the damages can be quantified, but someone should look into it. perhaps the FSF can launch a lawsuit for defamation, or something of the sort? (i think that by the time i read a story, no one is going to scroll down far enough to read my comments, mod or not, but anyways)
--- it's pelvis to be cube
By buying this copy of windows xxxx
from us you agree to the following
terms and license agreements
1. we own you period.
2. All your software are belong to us.
3. You will not install any opensource
software on your machine.( TCP/IP from BSD is ok )
4. You will let MPAA , RIAA , XXAA etc. to
periodically scan your disks for any
DCMA circumvention devices.
So long and thank you for all your $$$
Or maybe M$ network software and BSD Network Software have had the same bugs is purely co-incidental? Truth is I specificaly remember seeing in a Win95 about page, a credit for BSD code. I didn't get to read the article, got a 404 from M$. might suspicious... Clue-less VP at megacorp: "We are not going to use any Open Source saftware; yank it, kill it, make it gone" IT Manager: "I can do it, but you will not like it. It'll Serverly interupt operations" Clue-less: "I don't care just do it" IT Manager shuts off the company Intranet, Reports to Clue-less: "Mission Accomplished!"
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I image some day that Franken-Food will be viral.
The example would be:
1) Eat a Monsanto gene-twisted ear of corn.
2) It alters your DNA so that you can ONLY digest Monsanto gene-twisted products.
3) Eating any other food product not from Monsanto will cause nausia or immune reactions.
4) Monsanto rules the world in a gene-slavery food monopoly by providing food to its now permanently captive consumer base.
Sound insane and illegal? I use the Microsoft example as the template and carry it over to Franken-Food (not that Franken-Food HAS to be bad, in fact it could be a vector for improving the Earth near-effortlessly. But a few evil corporations spoil the apple barrel, literally.)
"Face it, a nation that maintains a 72% approval rating on George W. Bush is a nation with a very loose grip on reality.
Rule 1: Never expect any real wit from anyone who seems to like Ender's Game. ;) Ironic as it is.
History has already given us enough examples of which group will win in the end.
It is this EULA that is truly viral - as soon as you click it you agree to put ridiculous and unwarranted restrictions on your ability to use the tools you want. Take this shit seriously - this is balls out, anti-competitive, monopolistic tactics.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
That's a pretty badly informed statement. Your protection against that happening isn't GPL, it's good old fashioned copyright. GPL just adds this: "I retain copyright, but you may copy this source if you accept that the cost is making available the source to anything built with it." Regardless of what you think GPL says, or what you'd like it to say, that's what it actually says.
IMHO, GPL can fairly be described as being viral, even by an advocate (such as myself), and doesn't "protect" against anything. The protection is through the copyright, which is why the FSF recommends assigning it to them so they can fight abusers who rip off GPL code without sharing back their source. Please take the time to read the copyleft pages at the FSF.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Actually to correct my own statement before someone else does, what GPL effectively says is: "I retain copyright, but you may copy this source if you accept that the cost is making available the source to anything build with it and retaining this license in the copied source and adding this license to the derived product." Actually, the FSF copyleft page puts it even better (but with my emphasis)
"To copyleft a program, we first state that it is copyrighted; then we add distribution terms, which are a legal instrument that gives everyone the rights to use, modify, and redistribute the program's code or any program derived from it but only if the distribution terms are unchanged. Thus, the code and the freedoms become legally inseparable."
Don't get me wrong, I like GPL. I don't see a problem with it "infecting" source, other than that it will turn some appalingly rich people into merely very rich people. But I do think that it is fair to describe it as viral, or Borg-like, or whatever. The mechanism is the same.
But as an aside, the Borg are only frightening and evil if you've already been brainwashed by the Federation "conform to the cult of individuality" programming. In the same way, GPL is evil only if you think that the good of a culture is served by allowing a few individuals to buy anything they need (competitors, politicians, laws) to protect their monopoly on production. Just because that's the way we've worked for a few hundred years doesn't mean it's the only way to work.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Very good point, thanks for reminding me.
I have vigorously to disagree. Everything after the copyright statement is eroding your protection. GPL is carefully worded, but it's still debatable. By that, I mean that a Monstersoft could easily afford to throw a cadre of lawyers at a court case to tie it up and bankrupt the copyright owner. They don't have to win or even be right, they just have to doublespeak until their opponent runs out of money. GPL doesn't strengthen your protection, it just defines the battlefield that you'll fight on to defend it.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
So for instance, if MS say to me that as a condition of my buying (or licencing) Outlook, I cannot buy or licence Eudora Pro then it is unenforcable.
You'd think it would extend to the EULA situation but the law talks about 'competitor' a lot so any legal argument about free software might revolve around whether or not there is a 'competitor' (even if there is a competitive product that's free, that might not be enough).
I think the whole thing is an exercise in FUD around the 'viral' tag which on reflection might have been a really bad choice of words as far as the public are concerned.
If you people would just do as you're told, everything would be OK.
So let 'em know what you think. Here's a link to the Mobile Internet Toolkit Homepage and there's a feedback section at the bottom. Everyone go ask 'em why you can't use Open-Sourced tools with their toolkit.
"What are we going to do tonight, Bill?"
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
Get your red hot GPL from microsoft.com today!
This cannot be legal. I am quite sure they have no right to dictate how you develop software just because you use their SDK. They can dictate how you use their SDK itself, but that's it.
I am constantly nauseated by MS and their licensing agreements that make illegal pronouncements like this. They've *all* got obviously illegal stipulations of one sort or another, but nobody's got the wherewithal or drive to fight them, it seems.
For example, the "you can't give negative reviews to our software" clause that keeps magazines from publishing bad reports about MS software.
Another example, the clause they use for their apps which states that the software can only be run on an MS operating system, a clause intended to thwart efforts like Wine. I don't know if they still have clauses like this in their software, but they used to.
And the list goes on. How can they continue to get away with it?
It is legal in the sense that generally persons and companies are free to agree to any contract terms they want (exceptions - illegal contracts, like to murder, etc.). A license is simply that - a contract.
Intellectual property is like other forms of property like real estate for one. Of the the rights you get from owning property is the right to control its use - including how others use it. Thus, the license comes into play.
It may be illegal in the sense that it may end up violating the antitrust laws. Without rehashing the still undecided gov't case against MS, restrictive licenses by monopolists have been found to violate antitrust laws in the past.
What I am more interested in learning is how MS plans on policing and enforcing this license. Are the compiler police going to check my hard drive to make sure I am not using gcc? Or will MS load code to make sure I am open-source free and alert them anytime it detects suspicious activity (defined: use of non-MS software) just in case I am writing source code in Star Office's word processor?
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
Welcome to Microsoft Nail(tm).
EULA.
You can apply a standard hammer to Microsoft Nail(tm) IF AND ONLY IF:
1) You did not obtain a hammer freely from a son, Uncle, or Friend. (Relative, beloved etc)
2) You do not divulge any secrets obtained in the
act of hammering in Microsoft Nail(tm)
3) You realise that Microsoft is not responsible
for anything that Microsoft Nail(tm) is holding
up/on/above or about any object or artifact that
maybe in discordance with the above contract.
----------------------------------------------
The best lack all conviction
While the worst are full of passionate intensity
{YEATS}
1) This license is for some kind of mail toolkit, right? Well, if this means it's not legal for their stuff to talk to sendmail, then I guess they pretty much just killed their own product.
2) They have found an infectious meme in the word 'viral' to describe open source software. I encourage you to resist using it. It will hurt the open source movement. I will resist using it, and if people around me start using it, I will pretend like I have no clue what they are talking about until they use the appropriate term. "Viral Software? Whats that? You mean like Microsoft Outlook?"
3) The term 'Viral Software' is a term to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt... almost suggesting to people 'don't use this software unless you want to be exposed to viruses...' I think that the Free Software Foundation should sue Microsoft for Slander (or whatever the appropriate legal term is) for insinuating that they are virus-writers.
4) I think we should redefine the term 'viral software' on them. In my mind, Viral Software means 'software on which the majority of virii spread.' In this case,Windows and Outlook are the most virulent software of all.
-db
Come on now, according to M$'s own recent propaganda all Open Source and similar licenses are viral.
.NET servers doesn't that make this EULA a potentially viral program?
The big question is, given that this license requires (seems to require?) the use of
In the Beginning was Beer, and it was Good...
"Secrecy is the Beginning of Tyranny" "No intelligent man has any respect for an unjust law" -Robert Heinlein
) Open Source. Recipient's license rights to the Software are conditioned upon Recipient (i) not distributing such Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with Potentially Viral Software (as defined below); and (ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in whole or in part. For purposes of the foregoing, "Potentially Viral Software" means software which is licensed pursuant to terms that: (x) create, or purport to create, obligations for Microsoft with respect to the Software or
God spoke to me
I think this basically boils down to another attempt by Microsoft to get the term "Viral Software" accepted by as many people as possible - if you repeat something a thousand times someone is bound to believe it eventually.
The GPL does _not_ require the release of derivatives of GPL'd works. Instead it _forbids_ their release under any other terms. Thus a derivative containing both GPL'd components and components licensed under terms that forbid release of derivatives under the GPL (the subject Microsoft license, for example) may not be released at all without infringing the copyright on the GPL component (and the copyright on the other component as well).
Such requirements would violate the DFSG and so works licensed under them would not be Free Software at all. No it doesn't. None of those licenses meet the definition of 'Publicly Available Software' that immediately preceeds that statement.Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
What offends Microsoft most about the GPL is that it keeps all of us from working for them. They would be happy if they could steal our work and put it into their software, add their own innovations and then sell it for big $$$. But that darn GPL makes it impossible to legally steal the work (like they did for the BSD network layer stuff). They'd have to re-write it and it would be too expensive.
So we should all thank the GPL for keeping us from becoming Microsoft Employee's.
Sharing Knowledge is what scientists and Good Samaritans did(before the patent regime) we are already behind schedule 500technology years(approx.) due to withholding of knowledge by few, inventions in the fields of agriculture, military, metallurgy and what not This Bill boy is getting too greedy, But the cat is out of the bucket, GPL is more as a self-assurance/insurance against non-support of the product/service or the version by the vendor for the reason or other. Open source is not about GNU tools, Freeware, its about sharing and heritage of thoughts, knowledge and also code
http://senthilnayagam.com/
Although it seems on first glance to be evil, and to prevent people from compiling code using the MS toolkit using gcc or some other open-source compiler, or whatever, what it actually does is it prevents people from using the MS toolkit in code that people intend to release under a license that would require the MS software to be disclosed in source code form. This makes perfect sense to me. If I want to disclose the source code to a project I am creating, and I want to license my project under the GPL, and I want to use Microsoft code as part of this project, then the GPL would in fact try to force the Microsoft code to fall under the terms of the GPL. In reality, it is the GPL which is exclusive in this right, as it is the GPL that will prevent you from writing code using the MS tools, unless you are able to force the MS code to be licensed under GPL. In other words, *YOU* would be violating the GPL if you released a project under the GPL but were unable to release the Microsoft code that you used in your project under the GPL, because the GPL makes no exceptions for including proprietary code without it being GPLed. If this MS license prevents you from *compiling* using gcc, then that is wrong. You can compile something with gcc under the GPL and *not* release what you compiled under the GPL. Therefore, Microsoft has no reason to need to protect themselves by preventing you from compiling with these tools. If Microsoft is trying to FUD companies away from using any GPL or other free or open licensed software in conjunction with any Microsoft product, going into the future, then that is definitely something to be scared about.
I got a much better deal when I sold my soul to Satan, and he was upfront about what I'd lose, and what I'd gain. This is too sneaky for even the Prince of Darkness, the bad mamajama himself Lucifer. Satan also likes Iron Maiden, so it was cool. Now Microsoft on the other hand, fuck 'em. We should just ignore them, it'd be one plight removed. That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Microsoft
"...I say your civilisation because as soon as we started thinking for you, it really became our civilisation, which is, of course, what this is all about...the future is our world...the future is our time."
"...it came to me when I tried to classify your [software]...[open source] is a disease...a cancer of this [manopoly]...and we...are the cure..."
Open Source
"What do [we] need?"
"Guns. Lots of guns." (No paraphrasing required.)
But I'm curious about one thing. Who's the One?
A word can paint a thousand pictures
This shows Microsoft for what they are: a paranoid, clueless company that cannot stand to coexist with anybody else. One couldn't wish for a better illustration. In addition to that, Microsoft will likely only hurt themselves with it: too much Microsoft-related software is already based on open source software and open source tools
For some reason, when I clicked on the "EULA" link, the M$ page it linked to is no longer there... Has M$ removed it? Or has it simply been "Slashdotted?"
"It's a very tangled subsystem." --Windows kernel guru
Which means that you can't distribute Gpl'ed software with the SDK.
It's actually quite a simple indemnity from Microsoft - they don't want to be seen supporting Open Source, but they ARE NOT actively against it.
Again, if you'd actually read the link....
------
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.4.3-20mdk i686; en-US; 0.8) Gecko/20010409
The point is not that they can enforce the license agreement against individuals. They don't even try now, although they want everyone to believe otherwise.
The money, and hence their focus, revolves around business users. And business users are quite careful about such things.
You can take as an example anything you wish. You don't go after one person for an infringement of $15-500. Takes much too much effort to do it, unless you want to make an example, which has proven ineffective.
Now, suppose you also have the option to target a corporate user with 100, or even 100,000 individuals using the software. Besides, they have deeper pockets, and it has been shown repeatedly that deep pockets are easier targets. Unfortunately, unless we can make Open Source work in the corporate environment as well (it already does to a great extent), the entire movement is doomed to remain "a thing of geeks."
Besides, there are still individuals who get duped into paying for information such as operating systems, office suites, and games (take note, gamers). We need a stronger education campaign to battle the FUD-slinging that's currently going around.
"What is the purpose of reality?" When you can answer the question, it will be time for you to leave.
Why not to create an extension to the GPL/BSD/LPGL... licenses so that they are free for everybody but for Microsoft?
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity. - Lazarus Lon
Maybe if everyone didn't jump on Microsoft's ass whenever they used open sourced stuff because they made statements against Linux this wouldn't happen.
Good job in pissing them off, development just got 100 times harder (and more expensive).*/sarcasm*
--Yahiko
Everything I say is a lie.
Except that. And that. And that. And that.
So one can't even use IE?
The GPL tries to guarantee that end users will have access to the source code to read it if they want, developers will be able to build off of it if they want, and users of derivative products will enjoy the same priveledges and subject to the same strictures of openness. Nobody but Microsoft can review their code for holes nor build off of it.
The aforementioned Microsoft EULA tries to keep GPL'd code out of apps developed with the aforementioned SDK, and presumably in the future (and for the purposes of discussion) for Microsoft apps in general.
Why ? Probably for two reasons.
So it's not exactly a "tit for tat" matter, sir. One way forces developers to be good citizens; the other way allows monopolistic institutions to dominate developers. GPL makes the world safe for people who like to program and make serious contributions. Microsoft makes the world safe for MBAs, computer criminals, and lawyers.
Yeah, I tend to think so too. Though it probably couldn't affect Microsoft's own code ... but if it got into third party applications written for Microsoft it could be very embarrassing.
Well, the great feature of the market is, that anybody who makes something closed, 'exclusive' and so on, loses the market sooner or later.
If Microsuck is goin' to eliminate the Free Software from use with their "wonderful" SDK product, they will get their asses kicked painfully. The only thing it will make, will be lesser interest in their product -- it's like selling the car with the condition "tank only at the Acme petrol stations". Well, if any company did so, their car, however "wonderful", would be worthy no more than any other piece of scrap-metal -- that's exactly what a car turns into without fuel.
About their claims to make Linux illegal: F..k you, Micro$uck. F..k off! Fortunately, this is NOT you who makes the law. Such illegitimate threats are good enough towards the naughty children, NOT towards the adult, conscious and brilliant programmers and other Linuxers WE are. Let's better start makin' a better stuff (what you make today is crappy, hangs, has 'internal errors' problems and s**tloads of other idiotisms), or die on the market. It's all about it on the market. We are just better, and all y'all do is to be jealous. So try to be better, you bunch of naughty kids!
About the annoying, defamatory, libelous attacks of Microsoft against Open Source, GPL and so on: Beware, M$. Beware, Bill. Beware, Ballmer. While I'm not in favor of libel suits (they are the crappy way to get rid of the free speech), what about the counter-libel, for example to claim, that M$ software is dangerous to the health and life of the user? Well, if many Linuxers would claim so, M$ could get into hot water, especially with "sensitive" FDA and other agencies alike. Sure, nobody's willin' to use such DIRTY tactics, because we, Linuxers know the Golden Rule: "treat others as you wish to be treated by them", while M$, by contrast, applies the nihilist ideology that means: "freedom is good only, when it is freedom for us. Everybody else should be enslaved". While we say: FREEDOM FOR EVERYONE -- both for Linux and M$ (for example,I'm not in favor of anti-trust "laws" and while I hate Windows (it's a piece of s**t) I wouldn't like to ban M$ from makin' it)
We BEAT them morally, technically and in all the other ways, guys & gals. They aren't even a half as good as we are. So, Cheer Up!!
and let's TURN OFF your windows, let's erase it from your HDDs, let's return the copies to M$ with a note "we don't want this s**t anymore, our computers aren't the cloacas. We prefer to wash our hands and choose Linux, which is better". Let's encourage as many friends as you have to do it, by any means possible.
P.S. Ah, information -- Microsuck is satiric change of "Microsoft" name. That's what I think about them, my opinion.
That's all from Critto now -- a Linuxer, programmer, sworn Open Sourcer, and libertarian writer. My pages: www.critto.prv.pl-critto's pages and www.libertaryzm.prv.pl -- libertarian pages. Liberty or Death!!
Maybe that's true. Ya're right. Maybe they are goin' to change it, and prevent themselves from commitin' suicide
Amiga goes with Linux, too!
Just go to their wonderful Amiga.com website, and ya will see -- Amiga's going with Linux, too. There's the official cooperation between Amiga and Linuxers.
If we join together -- Linux, Amiga, BeOS, OS/2, Mac and so, we'll defy M$, that's sure. Even now, Linux has 27% of servers, Mac is the most popular DTP machine in USA, Amiga is the most popular machine in TV stations, BeOS is commin' rapidly, OS/2 was chosen by US Army instead of crappy Windows ...
Microsoft SUCKS!!
It's only from Critto, Linuxer, programmer, and a libertarian writer. Live Free or Die!