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."
to something like this:
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."
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
"Voila! Apples are different from Oranges" said American Agricultural Research magazine today.
.ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR
Here's a mirror of the pdf file.
DNA is the ultimate spaghetti code.
Maybe Microsoft will pad it's sections protecting the users so that their percentage of "protecting users" goes up. Wouldn't that be interesting?
www.scallion.sp00fed.net
Sig & Below
Yuck Fou
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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
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?
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
...more like comparing sweet apples to sour apples!
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
(To keep the Australian flavour)
In other news today an Australian newspaper compared huge man-eating white sharks with soft, nice furry koalas.
The short version: Koalas are nicer (despite their sharp little teeths).
Sorry... Could not resist... =)
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
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
This is unfair in all respects.
In these Internet times, should it not be - it's like comparing Apple to Orange
Yes its like comparing two different kinds of fruit, is there something wrong with that?
Bush and Blair ate my sig!
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.
GPL protects rights of users at expense of developers.
XP EULA protects rights of developers at expense of users.
Anybody know exactly what the expression "puts paid to" means?
Am I close in interpreting this as "discredits"?
It's an Australian thang, isn't it?
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
If you read the article, it makes it clear throughout that the GPL is far less restrictive than the EULA you must agree to to use XP. Nobody doubts that anyway.
The whole article is 30 pages long. The section you quoted is just a reference to one aspect of the GPL.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
WinXP EULA doesn't say...
"cannot be used as a webserver or fileserver"
but
"shouldn't be ever used as a webserver or fileserver"
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.
Looking over the actual study, it dosen't appear to be an actual analysis as much as it is a simplification of the EULA. The "Analysis" Sections seem to just sort through the actual EULA and dumb down the lawyer/"Politically Correct" lingo into Laman's terms.
Only in a few sections of the GPL's "Analysis" does it actually compare the two EULAs.
It's still a very interesting read, as I rarely ever actually read the EULAs that come with software I buy/download.
"You had this look that of an angel, it was such a bad disguise" --Dishwalla
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.
The study itself seems to be unaccessable, but you can find a html version in Google's cache.
Offtopic, but what does "Study puts paid to common myth" mean? Is that Australianese?
Its plain stupid to compare License with a percentage of text on a subject...
line 1: you can't use that program
Line 1-10000: lawyer strange dialect
Overuse of the Pumping Lemma causes blindness
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...
They say that the GPL'ed code has no warrantee because there is no fee.. and then they say you have can charge a fee...
What's going on?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
with Patriot Act III, they won't knock, they'll have the right to *bomb* you immediately!
A document is NOT a derivative of the word processor you made it with. It is a result of your input (e.g. keyboard). Likewise a program compiled with a compiler is NOT a derivative of the compiler. (There are some exceptions on this like bison that includes part of itself in the generated file, but they have these exceptions documented in the license)
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
.. That you never need to astalavista keygens for GPL software.
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
exactly!
and if you ever use a GPL software, YOU are GPL'ed as well!!
DO NOT USE GPL SOFTWARE, IT IS EVIL!!
-- this information ad was brought to you by Microsoft PR Department --
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
If software produced under the (L)GPL can be used in software under the EULA, can software under the EULA be used in software under the GPL?
Just compare that observation to this:
"A chimpanzee is an ape, but an ape is not a chimansee"
This test shows that chims are a subgroup of apes.
Does this also show the GPL is a subgroup of the EULA? >>;-E'''
There is only the skcula (scottk kc user license agreement) which means if you don't do what they say they will 'skcula' fsck you.
# cannot be used as a webserver or fileserver
That's OK. I dont expect Windows XP to be a webserver. Just install Apache and use Apache as a webserver.
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.
The study pointed out that if a developer wanted to create free or open source software which he or she wanted to use in proprietary software without that proprietary software itself coming under the GPL, they could use the Library GPL, which was specifically designed for this purpose.
The developer, as the copyright holder, is free to release their code under whatever restrictive licences they like, even if it was previously released under GPL.
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 ).
His "article" on Mono, for instance. [smh.com.au]
Man, mono sucks, I dunno what your problem is. First time I tried it, I got it from my girlfriend, and I couldn't even get out of bed for a week. Damned doctor had to run all kinds of tests on me. I tell ya, I don't ever want to try using mono again.
If this guy says .NET is worse than mono, that's pretty bad. I don't know what this .NET thing is, but it sounds like plague or polio or something.
OK--I have a little Karma to burn, so I'll ask the question.
What's a PHB?
The only thing I could come up with was "Player's Handbook", but I know that can't be right. It sounds like some corporate term, but it's not one I'm familar with.
Why would I want to show this to my Player's Handbook? That doesn't make sense. As for comparing the two, there is nothing useful that you can really obtain from a comparison.
GeneralKael -- Slacker Extraordinaire
You can share files with the Windows client OS ever since WfW 3.11. I think MS's point is that you should not use it in a traditional file server role because that's what Windows Server is for. Also, you wouldn't *want* to: XP Pro is limited to 10 connections.
You beat me to it
I am fully behind GPL, but the credibility of the study is a major concern when they don't know that IBM's Database is called DB2, while Sybase is an altogether different company.
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
The GPL says "do what you want - BUT if you decide to distribute it, you must follow these rules...."
No, it says if you modify, copy, or distribute it you must follow these rules. I'd like to see you run software without modifying or copying it.
Some features about software covered by the EULA:
Film at 11.
What is music when you despise all sound?
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.
One of my all-time favorite Slashdot sigs (and probably comes from somewhere else, but hey, that's where I've noticed it :)) is "If you like Microsoft software, then you haven't read the EULA." (probably slightly mangled, but you get the idea.)
... so they can continue to sell it with first-born-child provisions, and I can continue for the forseeable future not to buy their chainware.
... I'm not dogmatic about the closing-off process, so BSD-style is just great :))
For existing software, I think all the major Free software licenses* are pretty nice to users with no interest in reselling software, and at least some of them (BSD esp) are very friendly to (for instance) embedded or other developers who want a code base more than they want to sell packaged software. (And even for folks who *do* want to resell the software, licenses like the GPL are actually quite friendly as well, *providing you can live with its terms.* If you can't, no point discussing it, eh?)
For those who want to sell packaged software the same way eggs are sold (one sale at a time, repeat as necessary, and Oh yeah, these go bad.), freedom-enhancing licenses might not be as good
timothy
(* And by that, I'm referring to any that allow access to source code, modification and free redistribution
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers!
What do developer's like to use? GPL/LGPL baby!
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Don't get me wrong I agree with you. I do all my compiling using g++ and editing with vim at work.
I was just pointing out that the differences in end users throws off the articles statistics.
The study found that while 45 percent of the EULA was concerned with limiting users' rights, only 27 percent of the GPL concentrated on this aspect.....And while 40 percent of the EULA limited remedies, the corresponding figure for the GPL was 22 percent.
If you take away the 51% of the GPL that has little mirror in the EULA, that 27% becomes 54%, and the 22% becomes 44%, both much more even with the EULA. I'm assuming there is no overlap between the 51% that talks about extending the source and this 27% since all the percentages mentioned for each lincense add up to 100%, so I'm assuming they are mutually exclusive parts.
Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
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.
Apparently the restaurant industry has a lot of mod points today :)
What the hell, I've got karma to burn. Flame on!
The SMH article is complete crap, you'll have to concede that.
But remind me again exactly how this was 'research'? A few statistics, and a summarized restatement of the blatantly obvious. I could have told you the same things as this study, with a little time to dredge through the M$ EULA. Come on, "Confirms the impressions I've felt for a while", did you never read either license?
Come on, 7 people to come up with this? Surely a dictionary and Tools>Word Count can't be that hard to find.
Sure, if the text of the pdf got put in a slashdot comment, I'd mod it up informative, but its not like its journal quality at all.
Not entirely fair. Even if simply running software did count as modify/copy (which I doubt), the restriction is that you make available the source just as the binaries. Since you are the one doing whatever you are doing, you have the source.
The only thing you can't do is break the link between source and binary by making the binaries available in some way that the source isn't.
So you can modify GPL software to your heart's delight in-house and never release the changes you made, just as long as you don't release the binaries either.
You might be a better software engineer if you thought before you spoke then. Surprisingly, companies don't want you using freeware, whose 'EULA's' usually consist of 'we are not responsible blah blah blah' because if said freeware were to fuck up and cause the company problems they would have no comeback against anyone.
Think first, type later.
It's time to get aggressive.
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.
But turds are the industry standard. Besides, a billion flies can't be wrong...
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
XP home edition cannot be used as a webserver or fileserver.
What problem does Apache HTTP Server have when run on Windows XP Home Edition? Have you reported the bug?
Will I retire or break 10K?
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?
I know a lot of EULAs (and the GPL) have the claim that the software has no legal warranty to do anything, including the expectation that it's suitable for any purpose. Does XP have this clause as well?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
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...
One thing I never understood about the LGPL. If I don't modify the code, then I don't have to release mine. But, if I do modify it, then I have to release the changes AND my code. I understand having to release my changes to the LGPL code, but why do I have to also release my code when I wouldn't of had to if I didn't change the LGPL'd library?
Anonymous Cowards suck.
Interestingly, I've come across a lot of installers since moving to Mac OS X written by people who apparently don't "get" the licence they've adopted and force users to agree to the GPL as an EULA. Annoying, but as the GPL doesn't remove any rights, I don't see it as a problem in any sense except politically.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Even if simply running software did count as modify/copy (which I doubt)
It does, though you are automatically granted a license to do it under copyright law.
the restriction is that you make available the source just as the binaries.
Actually you also have to "carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change." And you don't just have to make source available, you have to accompany the binaries with the source, or a written offer to provide the source. Hope you're not making install CDs which don't contain the source code...
So you can modify GPL software to your heart's delight in-house and never release the changes you made, just as long as you don't release the binaries either.
Not quite to your heart's delight. You can't remove the copyright notice. See this dispute, for instance.
While I can understand Microsoft has the desire to protect their intellectual property, it seems out of the realm of reasonableness for them to be able to force changes in the EULA at anytime, and expect that the enduser be ok with them. Are there currently any contracts that allow a company to arbitrarily change the agreed upon terms of a contract and force the enduser to go along with them?
Microsoft needs to release a static EULA that customers can count on. Customers have bought their product, end of story. Microsoft's part of that is laid out in the original contract. There is absolutely no acceptable changing of that contract period. For a business, I would want to know what to expect, and not for Microsoft to ram profit increasing stipulations into a platform I depend on, and that my business runs on.
The EULA doesn't even include a time-frame that the original EULA rests on. Where does a legitimate business go if Microsoft decides to render all EULA's void and release a new one that says they may not use the software for commercial profits? Where is the value in buying software which the next day may become useless.
Linux is not perfect (close though), but at least I can count on being able to use it as I please for as long as I please.
- protects user rights
- Grants external developers extra rights
- Copyright holders retain rights
- Ensures that 1-3 are perpetuated in derivative software
BSD:- protects user rights
- Grants external developers more extra rights than GPL
- Copyright holders retain original rights
- Does not ensure 1 & 2 perpetually in derivative works, thus users and developers can be denied those rights in the future
The main problem with the BSD licenses is that they make it impossible to compete with a proprietary competitor. You're releasing stuff under the BSD license, some proprietary developer can just grab all of your work, include it in their code, but give nothing back. They can use you're work to benefit themselves. But not vica versa. This means that the Free Software developers can never ever outcompete the proprietary developers, because the proprietary developers get everything the Free Software developers have made, and don't have to return a thing.If you are aiming to compete with proprietary developers, this is not the way to go. That is, if you want Free Software to be the dominantly used software, it has a lesser chance of succeeding.
If you don't want to compete with proprietary developers, then that's perfectly fine. You don't have to. If you want to make something that will assist proprietary developers in bringing products to GNU/Linux, then BSD may be a better way to go. See OggVorbis.
Really, imo, alot of the people who bitch and moan so much about software being GPL'ed are those -- like MS -- who want to take code and benefit from it, without giving anything back. That's why MS loves the BSD-license. At least the people whining about this from a perspective of, "but, proprietary developers have to GPL their code if they include GPL'ed code". Yes, it's called a community. The GPL was designed to prevent leaches like MS from leaching off of the community.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Most of the comments suggest the GPL is developer-oriented whereas the EULA is user-oriented.
Oriented at the user maybe.
From the article MS can alter your computer, gain information from your computer and redistribute it, without asking.
gives Microsoft rights to collect information about the system and the its use
gives Microsoft the right to supply this information to other organisations
gives Microsoft the right to make changes to the computer without having to ask.
Doesn't sound user friendly to me.
You already have a fair use right to make copies of software in order to run that software
You have a fair use right to use Microsoft software on a computer with more than 2 processors, too. I thought we were talking about the rights that the licence purports to take away, not the ones it actually does take away.
If you don't agree to the GPL, you can continue to run it under fair use.
What if you've been forced to click "I agree" to the GPL? What about the fact that the GPL says that "by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it." By installing a program, you modify it. And according the GPL, that indicates acceptance. Sounds an awful lot like an EULA to me.
RMS himself has regularly made the point, and he'd know better than anyone else.
RMS isn't a copyright lawyer, so no, he wouldn't know better than anyone else. The people who would know better than anyone else are the members of the Supreme Court.
Interestingly, I've come across a lot of installers since moving to Mac OS X written by people who apparently don't "get" the licence they've adopted and force users to agree to the GPL as an EULA. Annoying, but as the GPL doesn't remove any rights, I don't see it as a problem in any sense except politically.
The GPL does remove rights, if you agree to it. It forbids you from distributing binaries without distributing source code. That's something that I do all the time with Microsoft software, by reselling it.
There is a huge difference between these two licenses in what freedoms they grant you but I think the freedoms they grant others are more important.
Most people aren't programmers. Most programmers don't have time to fix every bug or add every feature they want.
That the GNU GPL gives *you* these freedoms isn't the important part, it's that it gives *everyone* these freedoms.
MS EULA treats people as lone individuals and prohibits sharing/helping. The GPL expects this and flourishes when sharing and helping occur.
Ciaran O'Riordan
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
are more laywers pretending to be IT people.
From the article:
Okay, so what we have here is an analysis of "legal documents" by a group of people who are not lawyers. Hmmm, that somehow knocks the whole analysis idea. This is more like having a mechanic perform an autopsy and write a coroner's report.
The GPL says "do what you want - BUT if you decide to distribute it, you must follow these rules...."
More accuratly copyright law says "you cannot distribute a copyright work without permission from the copyright holder". The GPL says "you have permission to distribute this copyrighted work subject to the following conditions".
I wish to append your "MSEULA in a nutshell."
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. Toute votre base sont appartiennent à nous. Vous êtes sur votre chemin à la destruction. Faites votre temps."
TodayTM BillyJoelTM GoogleTMd for StitchTMes due to WindowsTM while RollerbladeTMing with an AppleTM and a PopsicleTM
No, it says if you modify, copy, or distribute it you must follow these rules. I'd like to see you run software without modifying or copying it.
Because the GPL is only concerned with distributing it to a third party. Which is an unambiguious definition of "distribute".
Unlike the proprietary software industry which has tried, succesfully, to redefine "copy" to include using it. Anyone who tried to argue that you needed permission to read a book, because your eyes created copies or infomation might be transfered between nurones would be laughed at. There is no way a book publisher could get away with attaching a per reader fee, together with a per listener fee, to a book. But try the same thing with software suddenly judges and legislators think the argument makes some sort of sense.
Effectivly an EULA is an attempt by one legal entity to regulate the internal opertations of another legal entity.
Because the GPL is only concerned with distributing it to a third party.
That's not what the GPL says.
There is no way a book publisher could get away with attaching a per reader fee, together with a per listener fee, to a book. But try the same thing with software suddenly judges and legislators think the argument makes some sort of sense.
Books are different from software. Go figure.
Effectivly an EULA is an attempt by one legal entity to regulate the internal opertations of another legal entity.
Interesting definition.
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.
Surprisingly, companies don't want you using freeware, whose 'EULA's' usually consist of 'we are not responsible blah blah blah' because if said freeware were to fuck up and cause the company problems they would have no comeback against anyone.
Exactly like very-expensive-ware... Thus this argument dosn't appear to hold water.
Not really the point of the story, but thanks for the flame all the same. Lucky for me I'm not a software engineer, just someone who speaks his mind, because it is one of the dumbest things i ever heard.
cheers
EULA's (and their cousins and uncles) are an attempt to restrict the rights of the people who use the software in order to protect the ability of those who own it (not necessarily the developers) to further restrict its use and to charge arbitrary fees for such use and to protect the owners from liability or other responsibility.
Or: the Open Source licences try to maintain rights for as many of the people involved as possible and EULA's try to remove rights from as many people involved as possible.
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.
Many have stated here (in response to articles on the proposed Oregon law that would require consideration of Open Source) that such laws are not needed - that Open Source Software would be considered by any competent bureaucrat. This is a cogent argument that any such claim is nonsense. (I'll further advance the argument that "competent bureaucrat" is something that occurs with vanishingly small probability and that this story illustrates that as well.)
And since MS reserves the right to alter the EULA at their discretion, the one you have during evaluation and the one that they give you when you buy (or even after you buy) can be very different things.
2) People's requirements change.
3) What sort of moron buys MS at all?
By installing a program, you modify it.
No you don't.
It forbids you from distributing binaries without distributing source code. That's something that I do all the time with Microsoft software, by reselling it.
Hm.
Either 1) you're selling copies of the software that were purchased from someone else. In this case, you're simply selling things without modifying them, which you could do with GPL software anyway. Or 2) you're creating your own copies of the software, in which case you surely have a license agreement with its own terms and conditions.
Either way, I think your statement is disigenious in seeming to show that you have rights the GPL doesn't allow.
The enemies of Democracy are
By installing a program, you modify it.
No you don't.
Yes you do :).
Either 1) you're selling copies of the software that were purchased from someone else. In this case, you're simply selling things without modifying them, which you could do with GPL software anyway.
Where does the GPL allow you to sell binaries without modifying them and without including the source code (or a written offer of the source code)?
Do you like Japanese imports?
GPL: My program is finished! You can take my baby and do whatever you want with it!
MS EULA: You use our program and your first born baby belongs to us.
Where does the GPL allow you to sell binaries without modifying them and without including the source code (or a written offer of the source code)?
It doesn't have to. If you have a copy of Red Hat Linux, you can sell that copy of Red Hat Linux however you like.
Which is either what you are doing, or you have an agreement with Microsoft (or obviously some other entity authorized to enter into such an agreement on MS' behalf).
The enemies of Democracy are
"Why? Surely the limitation is part of IIS. What if you run Apache?"
I agree, that's shitty. No argument here. However, I've thought about this a little more, and I can sort of see the legal implications here. We all know XP Home is not secure. MS definitely has made no effort to secure the machine in a situation like that. On top of that, it's got some firewall stuff running that could potentially step on the toes of somebody trying to run stuff like that. I vaguely remember having an issue getting Apache to run on my XP-Home box, but I can't remember specifically what it was. (It was much easier on 2000 pro.)
Being that XP might interfere with the operation of such software, Microsoft was probably trying to cover their butts in case people were trying to use Apache and got irritated when XP seemed to be trying to make sure it didn't work. "Well, it says in the license not to do that with XP."
Shitty, but somewhat understandable.
"So? Why does the license give a shit about it? If it does, that's a pain in the arse. Upgrade Video card/Memory. Stops working? Why????"
I already explained that in my previous post.
"Reverse engineering IS ALLOWED!!! That's how you got cheap PC's."
??
"When you buy a toaster, you get 1 year warranties. Why not software? It's easier to update to fix problems than a toaster."
While I would guess it's because software is not run on a guaranteed bit of hardware (face it, PCs are like Frankenstein monsters), it's hardly relevant to this particular discussion. If my computer crashes, is it Microsoft's fault, Dell's fault, Nvidia's fault, or ID's fault?
"I rate your comment -5 Bloody Stupid. "
I find that amusing. You picked on only 3 of my points, and two of the nitpicks were dragged out into irrelevance terriotory.
"Derp de derp."
I completely and 100% "agree" with you on this point! :-)
Why not read the article and see, ass? Some of us did. You might try that before posting three ignorant rants to this thread. Ridicule is good for you.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Anybody like to cite interesting portions of the EULA of those systems?
Pricey systems! I'll be happy to do a market study for you. Just send me a brief description of what you wish to acomplish, the hardware you own, your budget and a research fee of $5,000 then I'll get back to you next week with a few proposals. I'd be loath to not include Linux and BSD in that proposal, but I can neglect those cheaper alternate solutions for an additional $2,000 and a written statement to that effect. Proposals can be in any format you chose and with held from further publication at your request.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Alright, this is just off the top of my head, and I haven't read the entire GPL or LGPL (I did read 'Free As In Freedom' though! ;-) ). One major possible implication of the DMCA not allowing us to reverse engineer binaries for even educational purposes is this: It's possible that say even Microsoft may one day put out GPL software (it's a stretch, but follow me here..), in which case they are not (I believe) restricted in selling their software, but as such are required to fork over the source code with the binaries. Said large company then proceeds to sell software bundled with absolute garbage code. Not necessarily pure garbage, but perhaps leaving out certain key code regions. By the contract, they've provided us code, and by the DMCA, we can't explicitly prove that the code run on their machines with their compilers with their compiler flags does not produce the binary? Legally, where does that leave the consumer (also don't forget that a majority of people buying said product would not notice the code chunks missing, if they read any of it at all)?br.
Even better, what if they're writing code (and distributing it with commercial binaries) for a compiler which doesn't exist outside of their company? Or that uses magic syntactic sugar to hide large portions of code? It's still "source".
--- What
So then the license contradicts itself. Wouldn't the later provision override the previous one?
That is, assuming the court doesn't decide to interpret the seeming contradiction to mean that running the program is not restricted, but installing or loading it into memory is.
If you actually read the GPL, the terms for copying and modification only apply if you distribute, therefore the parent poster is correct and you are not.
If the terms of the GPL do not apply, then you have no permission whatsoever.
In any case, the terms for distribution are only one section. There are at least two others.
If you have a copy of Red Hat Linux, you can sell that copy of Red Hat Linux however you like.
Not if you agreed to the GPL, which says that you can only distribute binaries with source.
2) The GPL issue you raise is misleading. We were talking about the license for usage, not for distribution. The GPL is not concerned with how you run the programs under it on your computer. MS can (and has) altered EULAs about usage.
3) If you've paid for MS products with your own money, then you've already gotten it. That's why you're walking funny. If you're a user on someone elses dime, then they have been and you've watched.
Evaluating a legal document based upon the number of square inches dedicated to a particular topic is nothing short of ludicrous.
What I have wondered if there is a license that is similar to the GPL except for ONE {albeit MAJOR }difference... Allow everyone the rights that the GPL gives except for a particular "group" that can be specified in the license....
example: anyone can use and distribute my software or services except for those affiliated with
1- Competitior company A
2- WTAMU.EDU students and staff
3- ARN.NET customers and employees
4- Some specific Person B (wtjoker) and their workplace (wtjoker-work)
5- Those listed at some particular url (http://example.com/bannedaccess/)
--
Time is on my side
- Contracts (such as an EULA or the GPL) are typically written from the "most broad" restrictions down: e.g. later clauses rarely countermand an earlier one (they are intended to refine and further narrow what was originally a broad statement). Therefore, if the first clause of the GPL says you do not need to agree to that document in order to run the program, later ambiguous or contrary statements (of equal or lesser legal strength) are "overriden" into having a meaning which complies with the prior clauses. [I wish take this time to repeat: I AM NOT A LAWYER, NOR AM I A LEGAL STUDENT. Do not treat this opinion piece as hard fact, but as a general outsider's observation of the application of law. Furthermore, contradictory clauses make for the "exciting" contract violation cases. In case of doubt, seek a professional's opinion. However, even with this firm disclaimer, it should be noted that the head legal councel for the FSF shares this interpretation of the GPL.]
- End users have the fair use right to "space shift" and "format shift" media they have legally aquired (as decided by the RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia court case). In the absense of non-copyright based restrictions (such as the clauses of a standard EULA), that right remains; therefore, the acts of installing or running a program (as space and format shifting actions, respectively) do not form copyright violations (which would require agreeing to the GPL).
I would hazard a guess that your confusion may arise from the fact that GPL-based programs distributed with a standard installer (which mandates agreement with an EULA) insert the GPL into the EULA box. This does not imply that consent to the GPL is required to run GPL programs, only that the distributor was very lazy. Any other questions?Do you like Japanese imports?
Come on, stop playing words: is not that hard to see the "L" in both GPL and EULA; and their respective contents. Even diff can:
;-)
<kryax@nowhere LegalProy>$ diff GPL eula.txt
[...]
28,31a0
< To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
< anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
< These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
< distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
[...]
79,85c23,44
< 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
< source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
< conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
< copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
[...]
---
> * Installation and use. You may install, use, access,
> display and run one copy of the Product on a single
> computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device
> ("Workstation Computer"). [a1] The Product may not
[...]
31d70,71
> * Reservation of Rights. Microsoft reserves all rights not
> expressly granted to you in this EULA.
[...]
258,268c287,318
< NO WARRANTY
<
< 11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY
< FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN
< OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES
< PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED
[...]
---
[...]
> packaging, or other communications. Except for the Limited
> Warranty and to the maximum extent permitted by applicable
> law, Microsoft and its suppliers provide the Product and
> support services (if any) AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and
> hereby disclaim all other warranties and conditions, either
> express, implied or statutory, including, but not limited
[...]
You see? I think each one has something of apple, and orange. And of banana, the M$ EULA...
I'd liked to include a diff of a propietary program, but, you know, I could not afford the taste
That's still not "however you like."
That's still not "however you like."
That applies to how many things in life ?
...just embrace any freedom you CAN have ;-)
The GPL explicitly disavows any restriction on use. The GPL only has to do with distribution. Joe six-pack can run GPL software in any way he pleases.
The silly wordcount percentage is meaningless. Just because it takes longer to explain the rights of developers does not mean they have more rights.
In practice, copyright protects 'sweat of the brow'
:)
... extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation,...
Not true, see the Supreme Court Feist decision.
what freedom means and it's different than yours
Well, your position has evolved throughout this discussion. First it was "no constraints", now it seems to be "optimized intellectual property system first, minimal constraints after".
The entire movement seems deadset on explaining that their notion of freedom is the right one
That's a hasty generalization. It's true that the GPL was carefully crafted to preserve freedoms in an optimal manner, but all of these people can see that public domain/bsd license is better than proprietary ownership. Even the Free Software Foundation recognizes the BSD license as a Free Software license, so it's hard for me to understand where you're coming from here.
there can be no free software other than gnu-approved
Clearly not true. But the GPL best protects freedom compared to other Free Software licenses.
The GPL would be meaningless in a world where proprietary licensing was not recognized; at this point these licenses would be functionally the same.
in the absence of copyright law. My mere ownership of the physical object entitles me to a monopoly
True enough. You own the physical object. The physical object can't be copied for free. It is the scarcity of physical objects that give them value, therefore they don't need artificial government monopolies.
Will your next position be to start calling property "object monopolies", or are you smart enough to see that this abuses (again) the term monopoly.
The monopoly a person has over an owned object is natural because two people can not possess it at the same time. Ideas are different, you can "have your cake and give it away too".
So I guess I'm not smart enough to see things your way
In no case does copyright protection
So we are in agreement. Copyright whould not apply to software, since it certainly qualifies as procedure, process, system AND method of operation, and possibly as idea in many cases.
But I have a feeling you don't see it that way. If only the law actually meant something in our corporate republic.
Finally, even if I am wrongly interpreting the copyright code, patents are still an issue. We agree that they unfairly limit innovation. The GPL prohibits them, public domain/bsd does not. Can we at least agree that the GPL is a useful vaccine against patent encumbrance? I'd love to find some small point on which we can not be at odds.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
What does that have to do with anything?