Slashdot Mirror
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."
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
GPL protects rights of users at expense of developers.
XP EULA protects rights of developers at expense of users.
The GPL does have viral properties
The GPL has vaccine-like properties. Virii have the connotation of being malicious. The GPL ensures that software, once freed, stays free. And like a vaccine, you can't get it accidentally- you have to deliberately ingest it (i.e., link it into your own code). A virus is something you might get whether you like it or not.
Try linking to some Microsoft code and then check the licensing health of your application. What's that you say? You have to convince Microsoft to allow you this privelege, just like you would have to obtain permission from the author(s) of GPL'd software to make nonfree extensions?
The vaccine metaphor is more apt- the GPL allows healthy usage of code and prevents non-free cancers, parasites and virii from growing on otherwise free (healthy) software projects. Proprietary licenses can be viewed as more of a tourniquet, cutting off all unapproved growths, for better or for worse.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
I see your point, they are different. But there are ties. You need to know what you are getting into when you install software.
The GPL says "do what you want - BUT if you decide to distribute it, you must follow these rules...."
The MS EULA says "by installing this software, you agree to the following terms....".
Yes, they are different, but MS has been FUDding the heck out of the GPL. So someone compared it to their EULA. (not very well, mind you, but whatever)
You are right, they are different things. But people need to understand that they are different things, and WHY they are different. I think they should have a nutshell comparison of the two:
GPL: "You own this software, do what you want with it. If you redistribute it in any way, follow the courteous rules defined in the license agreement."
MSEULA: "We own your ass, and can change the terms of owning your ass whenever we want. We reserve the right to own your ass in the future."
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Even if you can't or won't or don't want to modify the source code, you get benefits from the fact that other people can. That's one of the key benefits of Free SW.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
XP Pro has IIS, but it cannot be used as a "real" web server or file server. XP Pro is limited to 10 connections. Also, MS tells you to not use it in this role because they want people using Windows Server as much as possible.
A person buys XP Pro. They open the box, install it and read the EULA. They note that it doesn't allow them to do the necessary file/print sharing (That the software is capable of doing them is irrelevant. The license doesn't allow it.). So they have to go out and buy a new version of XP that does allow them to file/print share. And of course, they can't return the old XP Pro because they opened the box and installed it (Good luck on convincing the seller that you rejected the EULA and have uninstalled it.). Two sales, one code base, all the work on the buyers side. Good day.
Nice set of arguments there.
1) Ms puts things in their EULA so that they won't have to provide support.
2) No one ever reads EULA.
3) People misunderstant the EULA
4) MS will never enfor the EULA.
5) You can ignore the parts the of EULA you don't like.
6) The EULA is unenforcable.
and finally.
7) Use another product.
Hey! Number 7 is what this topic was all about in the first place.
War is necrophilia.
The term viral referes to the fact that the GPL spreads to whatever it touches. They're not talking about the outcome - there are viruses that are benign to the point of being ignored, but they're still viruses (some are beneficial, like bacteriophages). Vaccine has nice touchy-feely connotations, but I haven't contracted a vaccine lately, have you?
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Licensing, and this is nasty.
Netscape used to do quite nice business by pointing out that their webserver could run very happily on NT Workstation (indeed, in their opinion, better than others on Server) and that the combination of the NTWS and their license was still cheaper than NT Server.
At which point MS change the license and prohibit using NTWS as a server. If you want that, buy NT Server - which is way more expensive and, look, happens to come with a 'free' web server...
If I choose to dig my garden with a teaspoon, that is my right. If I choose to run a removal firm out of a Mini, that is just as much my right. Why, therefore, should it be legal for a software company to prohibit me using something for a purpose they did not intend and do not believe it suitable for? If I'm happy with it, I should be able to.
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
Ok, its one thing to have a EULA that tries to prevent piracy and the like. To be quite honest, I have no problems with MS or any other company using a EULA to try and enforce that.
An EULA is entirely redundent here. Since it would simply duplicate copyright law. You might just as well sticker every physical object you own with "you may not take this without permission"....