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."
But why would a EULA make a user agree to not use a particular product as a webserver or fileserver?? Before I turned to Linux, I had an old computer running Windows 98 acting as a fileserver. If I wanted to do that with XP Pro I'd be in violation of the EULA?
Technicaly, that means that anyone who enables file and printer sharing is violating the EULA! If MS is so against it, why do they build it into their products?!
-Shadow
Yet network and internet filesharing is still built into Windows XP...
"You had this look that of an angel, it was such a bad disguise" --Dishwalla
Some people lease cars. Others rent. Others buy. Each comes with a different cost, a different value, and a different set of restrictions. GPLed software is closer to leasing. Microsoft software is more like renting. Public domain is like buying.
Do I really think that this will cause MicroSoft to release some of thier tools under a Free license, or that they will include Free Software in their products?
I suppose people who will take advantage of this will be smaller software companies, who can't afford to be as obstinate as MicroSoft, and want to speed development time by incorporating existing Free software...
philcrissman.com.
What's the deal with the study saying something like "43.9% of the MS EULA deals with restricting user's rights, while only 22.1% of the GPL is used for that topic". What is that based on, word count? Ridiculous(*)!
;)
Why not just report what the licenses actually say; what is one supposed to glean from how many words they use
saying it?
(*: Note, fellow slashdotters; this is the one and only way to spell the word 'ridiculous'. Thank you. Don't even get me started on 'loose'/'lose'...
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
Where I work, the real issue isn't Linux/(Open,Free,Net}BSD versus MS Windows {XP,NT,2K} - The competition is HP-UX/AIX/Solaris.
Anybody like to cite interesting portions of the EULA of those systems?
This is a boring sig
The Microsoft EULA "appears to limit choices, options and actions" taken by users of software covered by that licence. The GPL appears to safeguard the rights of the original developers in order to ensure continued accessibility of the source code for the software, the study found.
I think there is a flaw here. The MS XP EULA's 'end user' is refering to a person who simply uses the product, there is no option to be a 'developer user' here.
The GPL 'end user' is including the EULA 'end user' and a 'developer user' into the same pot. I'm sure the EULA would look much different if MS intended people to actually modify the source code.
So afai can see you have two different groups here. If linux actually ever becomes rampant on the desk top I don't think the "Over half (51 percent) of the GPL focused on extending users' rights" is going to really matter to the majority of the actual users. This 51% seems to only apply to 'developer users' not your plain old Joe Six-Pack user, and believe me there will be much more Joe Six-Packs than developers on a widley used OS. So now half the GPL is meaningless to most of the users?
Here's your freedom, oh I'm sorry you can't actually use it?
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
In a phone conversation with an IT worker-bee at a State Government agency I was informed that we could not use certain software due to fact that it is freeware. The word freeware, not Open-Source was used. In my amazement I was blurted out that it was one of the "dumbest things I ever heard" and was told that the State IT governing board wanted a license just in case they needed to sue somebody. This begs the questions:
1. Doesn't the EULA, as mentioned in the story exclude most remedies, including litigation?
2. Do you really think you can win such a case?
3. If you do win (and pig's fly), will that change the software, or will you get some monetary settlement? Meaning your stuff is still broken.
This comparison is something I will definitely keep close for my next conversation involving proprietary vs OS licenses. BTW the software in question was Tomcat.
If you've got a beef with the journalist, so be it. The research, however, confirms to me, the impressions I've felt for a while. The MS EULA should really be called MSCYA ( or maybe MSCBA ).
Some features about software covered by the EULA:
OK, we've all seen the smart-ass Apples v. Oranges, news at 11 posts. So what, pray tell, would it be more appropriate to compare an XP EULA to in the Free Software world?
Most of the comments suggest the GPL is developer-oriented whereas the EULA is user-oriented.
What is the EULA for Free SOftware then? Unlimited use, unlimited copying, no requirements or obligations to provide second or third-parties?
Someone needs to write the definitive GEULA. (or should that be GNEULA?)
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
It just doesn't work that way.
I installed XP pro. By default, it enables print sharing and creates admin file shares for hard drives. I think the EULA in this case is to prevent a customer from bugging MS with their printer not doing network stuff properly.
No one ever reads these licenses. If they are read, they are usually misunderstood or ignored. A lot of what is in them is just so MS can say "well, we told you not to do that" if someone calls the support line with a problem.
Some of the terms are crazy. If you don't like them, just ignore them or use another product.
The EULA is virtually unenforcable in any event. If you disagree with a EULA, the EULA says to return it to the place of purchace. If the place of purchace refuses to accept a return, the EULA has been voided. In that case, the product reverts to standard copyright law.
There are a thousand ways lawyers could turn it. None of them would end up in the small guys favor.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
To be able to do so, we'd have had to upgrade to a server version of the product. We'd have had to upgrade around 600 PCs across the US, not to mention the licensing costs.
Don't know how it all hashed out in the end, although we decided at the time to dump the functionality rather than hand over our wallets.
mmm... yeah... You see, we're putting the cover sheets on all TPS reports now before they go out...
That limit was probably put in there as a defense against the RIAA's fanatical anti-Kazaa/Napster/%FILESHARING position, so M$ can use that clause to avoid being charged with contributory copyright infringement. With the wild claims the RIAA is making- and winning- Micro$oft doesn't have much of a choice.
Warning: Poster of this comment is a nerd. Just like everybody else here.
The GPL is really summarized as:
Meanwhile, the MS EULA is pretty much just
Both licenses pretty much say:
"Provided by the management for your protection."
If, as most slashdotters seem to agree, the MS EULA is unenforceable (how can you agree to something post-facto?), has there been (or should there be) any serious discussion to determine the legal worthiness of this agreement? I mean, what would it take to:
- Disregard the EULA in some important way
- Force MS to take it to court
- Get the EFF (or some organization with a large amount of legal help to represent the offender.
- Test the legality of the EULA
Yes, it would be time- and cost-intensive, but I'd think it would create a great deal of (negative) publicity towards the EULA and MS's tactics.
That's not the point. It doesn't make sense for the end users. They're the ones being forced to pay extra for a different license when there is no technical reason for them to not print/file share on the OS they have. Forced, you say? Yes, forced by MS's civil lawsuit recognized monopoly.