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."
Here's a mirror of the pdf file.
DNA is the ultimate spaghetti code.
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)".
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
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.
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?
WinXP EULA doesn't say...
"cannot be used as a webserver or fileserver"
but
"shouldn't be ever used as a webserver or fileserver"
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.
In this context, it means "discredits".
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
If you keep the derivative work in house, you don't have to GPL it.