Windows XP EULA Compared to GPL

cranos writes "The Sydney Morning Herald is running an article comparing the XP EULA to the GPL. Basically it's just reinforcing what we already knew but it could be a nice little piece to show your PHB next time."

Comments

mirror

[oever]

Here's a mirror of the pdf file.

Re:It would be nice if they would simplify them

[wfberg]

GPL: "Do what you want with it, but give credit where credit is due"

MS: "You have no rights. All your base belong to us."

You're confusing GPL for the BSD license. The GPL is "1) Do what you want with it, 2) as long as derivative works are GPL as well (see 1)".

Ugh, forget this idiot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just do a little searching on Sam Varghese and see what an idiot this supposed journalist is. His articles are little more than the whining of an ill-informed, angst-ridden gadget-geek.

His "article" on Mono, for instance.

"comparing"?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

What will they compare next?

How about Max OSX vs. a bicycle?

Or perhaps a puppy vs. lear jet?

The GPL is not an EULA - it's a distribution license. Maybe if the MS EULA dictated terms under which you can distribute WinXP, then you might be able to compare them.

I just have to ask - what's the point?

Re:"comparing"?!?!

[Frater 219]

BTW, what apps were these?

Many GPL-covered applications packaged for Mac OS X put a copy of the GPL in the "license" slot in the standard OS X installer package. This causes it to be displayed in the same way that an EULA would be on a proprietary package. I imagine this is the same on Windows GPLed programs that use the standard installer.

It doesn't really matter. As has been pointed out several times now, the GPL isn't an end-user license at all, and it isn't an agreement either. It's an assignment of permission to copy and make derivative works from a piece of copyrighted software -- a license, not a "license agreement".

The GPL isn't even a contract (certainly not a "contract of adhesion" like MS EULAs), and it it expressly disclaims covering the act of running the covered program. It presumes that if you came by your copy of the program legally (as by buying it or being given it) you already have the right to run it on your property -- the only things you need permission from the author to do are those things normally restricted by copyright law.

There is an error in the article!

[borgdows]

WinXP EULA doesn't say...

"cannot be used as a webserver or fileserver"

but

"shouldn't be ever used as a webserver or fileserver"

Re:MS trying to make us violate their EULA?

[Utopia]

You are not in voilation.

They are comparing the XP Home edition EULA.
The professional version which you are using doesn't have that clause.

Re:For the Click Lazy

[jvervloet]

The study itself seems to be unaccessable, but you can find a html version in Google's cache.

Re:puts paid?

[ctid]

In this context, it means "discredits".

Re:It would be nice if they would simplify them

[jamincollins]

Not quite. The GPL is "1) Do what you want with it, 2) as long as *released* derivative works are GPL as well."

If you keep the derivative work in house, you don't have to GPL it.

Re:MS trying to make us violate their EULA?

[Selanit]

Quoth the poster:

They are comparing the XP Home edition EULA.
The professional version which you are using doesn't have that clause.

Incorrect. The MS EULA under analysis is that of Windows XP Professional Edition. And it does indeed have a clause limiting the number of machines that are allowed to share resources hosted on your computer. The relevant clause is:

You may permit a maximum of ten (10) computers or other electronic devices (each a "Device") to
connect to the Workstation Computer to utilize the services of the Product solely for File and Print
services, Internet Information Services, and remote access (including connection sharing and
telephony services). The ten connection maximum includes any indirect connections made through
"multiplexing" or other software or hardware which pools or aggregates connections.

It is unclear (to me, at least) whether this means that you're only allowed ten concurrent network connections, or whether you can only have ten Devices physically connected to your computer (eg through a LAN, including 802.11b hookups which we'll file under "physical" for the sake of argument).

I am going to assume based on the phrase "utilize the services of the Product" that the clause refers to network connections rather than the physical attachment of other devices to your computer. So, file-sharing and print-sharing and connection-sharing are okay, but only to ten other computers. It would be fairly easy to violate this term. Suppose you hold a LAN party and 14 of your friends come over. There's a recent patch for one of the games you plan to play, and you use a FileZilla FTP server to share it across the LAN so everybody can get it without mucking about with Network Neighborhood. Boom, you've violated the license.

One of the other posters has suggested that the restriction only applies to the number of computers accessing yours at any given time -- so you could give access to thousands of different computers, so long as there were never more than ten connected at one moment. I don't have XP, so I couldn't say -- does Network Neighborhood have a built-in connection limit in WinXP? Anyway, that would only apply to Network Neighborhood. Using Apache or any of a whole slew of other server-type programs could invalidate your license pretty quick.

Btw, I lifted that bit of license clause from the original report, not the summary that Slashdot has linked to. Another poster supplied a mirror of the PDF file. It's lengthy, but worth reading.