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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
--
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."
He's got the correct interpretation.
Vermifax
Vermifax
Logout
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.
It goes on to list specific 'examples' of such licences, including the GPL and other licences.
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.
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); }
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
Verily, the pot calleth the kettle black.
-=Maggie Leber=-
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.
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
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.
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.
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
--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.
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? --
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
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....
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.
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
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...
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.
This is just another move by Microsoft in their campaign against the GPL (which is, IMO, a good move on their part).
I don't agree with Microsoft's bash on GPL, but I do understand it and I think everybody at Slashdot should take a look at their own self created double standard.
The entire Linux community can make a game of bashing Microsoft, preaching agianst them, and insulting everything they do (even their rare gems with true merit), but if Microsoft speaks out against their biggest competition, suddenly they've commited murder.
If you ask me, I think they've been drawn into it. For a long time, Microsoft was silent about Linux. They had to say something eventually.
No reasonably intelligent person could have expected them to finally speak and give good opinions. It's naive to think the contrary.
Propaganda is spoken every day. Some of it much worse. Geeks tend to take arms at Microsoft though, because everybody just LOVES to HATE Microsoft.
If Microsoft were my business, I would have taken a more aggressive aproach to destroying Linux before it got nearly as big as it is today. In a way, I'm glad Billy Boy didn't have the foresight...
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
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)
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?
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
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...
--
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
not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software,
Which doesn't necessarily mean you are distributing it with free software but that you used free software as a "tool" in its development. This would in fact cover many things as was mentioned in the original
Look at the capital S's. You cannot use "viral" Software to develop other software that INCLUDES the (viral) Software. So you can use emacs to develop something. But you can't use it to develop something that alos includes emacs (because then the GPL would kick in). Basically, they are saying you can't roll something the is GPLed into something you are writing with their SDK, which seems perfectly fine.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
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
-----
also, much talk about testing GNU licenses in court -- has a M$ license ever been tested in court?
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
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!
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.
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.
--
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."
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
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
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.Please note the use of two distinct terms in the verbage of this clause. 'Potentially Viral Software' and 'Publicly Available Software'.
Virtually every post I have read thus far on the topic has confused the two.
First, Potentially Viral Software is defined as granting rights to distribute, use, mass-mail, and clean bird cages with Microsoft software, while requiring them to give you the source.
Second, Publicly Available Software is defined as software distributed under an open source license. Many of these licenses carry their own baggage about what they can be distributed with or linked against. This states that you cannot distribute anything which falls under this EULA with anything distributed under one of these licenses.
GCC and the Linux Kernel are both Potentially Viral Software in certain circumstances, because they fall under the GPL. If you link to them the GPL is viral, because it creates obligations for Microsoft. Therefore using this code to create a kernel driver is a no-no.
However, using GCC to compile does not convey the GPL on the resultant object code. Even though it is Publicly Available Software it does not fall under the terms of Potentially Viral Software. Linking against the Standard Library is not viral as the LGPL does NOT convey any obligation on the behalf of Microsoft. On the other hand, the resultant binary would not be distributable, because it would constitute distribution in part with Publicly Available Software.
Although, Linus has been able to, thus far, creatively interpret the GPL to allow vendor distributed binary drivers, the GPL does create obligations on code linked against it. This is the reason that the LGPL was created.
The definition of two very similar terms in such a short space creates a lot of confusion.
It is not Potentially Viral Software if you compile with GCC, because compiling with GCC does not convey the GPL upon the resultant object code. GCC is Publicly Available Software, which means you cannot bundle GCC with software covered under this EULA.
This is 'bad', but not nearly as bad as not being able to use open source tools in the development of software under this license. They are protecting themselves from 3rd party licenses.
Nothing in this license prevents you from compiling with GCC into a shared library, distributing that completely separately from your application and linking against it, but it does prevent you from distributing the aforementioned shared library with Publicly Available Software (e.g. Linux).
Although, this restriction is a nuisance, it is actually a protection they already had under the terms of many of these other licenses. They are simply stating it themselves, to preemptively prevent people from bundling this software with Publicly Available Software, which may appear to create obligations for Microsoft to which they have not explicitly agreed.
This goes a long way towards my long-standing belief that the GPL draws too firm of a line in the sand. I work almost exclusively with LGPL'd code as a result, because I can cleanly delineate what is open and what is proprietary in library sized increments.
Disclaimer: I do not work for Microsoft, and IANAL. Take this interpretation with a grain of salt.
Sanity is a sandbox. I prefer the swings.
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]
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!
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
Who actually pays attention to the EULA? Especially when it's quite dumb.
---
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!
I had the same idea but was thinking about Samba. THAT particular piece of software riles them to no end. See the Kerberos fiasco. I now have no doubt that their ultimate goal is to completely eliminate AND OUTLAW use of any software except theirs.
that's excellent. someone needs to h4x0r the microsoft site and change all the EULA pointers to point here instead!
sulli
RTFJ.
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:
Since when can you use Outlook to develop software?
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
Of course, as you point out, this is Microsoft. A government certified "secure" OS with more holes than swiss cheese. I just wonder when the rest of the world is going to pay attention to what's going on.
Microsoft attacks the terms of the GPL, and yet, it's probably against their EULA to sneeze while you're typing. I don't understand.
karma is for the weak >)
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
That's not quite what it is saying rather you have only highlighted part of it. It also says...
not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software,Which doesn't necessarily mean you are distributing it with free software but that you used free software as a "tool" in its development. This would in fact cover many things as was mentioned in the original /. post.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10);'
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)
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
Praise God! By his selfishness, Gates is doing what Perens and Stallman together couldn't do: unite the open source / free software community.
information is immaterial
Sorry, BSD does fall under that section. However, I don't see any problem with dynamically linking to these products.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
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
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.
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.
The part about not using their software in production machines is to prevent you from coming to them whining as say "Look, your evil beta software crashed and all my data is gone."
(Not that you could do that any case, but still.)
The part about not distributing the application talks about *their* application, not your code.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
An SDK contain some MS code, header files, mainly.
But headers are enough to GPL the code as well.
So it's not like you don't have *any* code.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
You can choose from many, as long as it's not GPL/and the like.
I don't like what they are doing here, mind you.
BSD, zlib, X11, apache, etc.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
How long did it take the world to wake up to Hitler? Or for that matter any number of "leaders" in the past with grand ideas of ruling the world. And even when the world does awake, the "leader" has so much power that he can't be easily stopped.
I have no sig, does anyone have one to spare?
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
The BSD licence (which TCP/IP is based on) is not mentioned, nor is it similar to any of the listed licenses.
This is just another move by Microsoft in their campaign against the GPL (which is, IMO, a good move on their part).
This license ensures developers can't be forced to use a specific license further down the line.
"Faith is the last resort of a desperate man" - Me
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.
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.