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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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...
with Patriot Act III, they won't knock, they'll have the right to *bomb* you immediately!
.. 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
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.
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.
Some features about software covered by the EULA:
>>The only thing I could come up with was "Player's Handbook"
>Hang your head in shame!! You call yourself a geek??
Someone who knows the AD&D reference but misses the business reference? I'd let him keep the geek status....
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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!
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".
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.
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?
As I understand the LGPL, there are two situations:
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.
OK, lets reply to both this and parent in one post:
That's OK. I dont expect Windows XP to be a webserver. Just install Apache and use Apache as a webserver.
There's a license limit of how many connections you can have at any given time. This license limit is part of XP for any app. I extremely doubt any non-MS software checks whether or not their on XP Home or XP Pro and throttles the connections, but its there in the license. If Slashdotters can complain about people violating the GPL then what will they say about people violating this? Probably nothing. I don't agree with MS's decision either, but if you respect one license do you respect the other...
That limit was probably put in there as a defense against the RIAA's fanatical anti-Kazaa/Napster/%FILESHARING position
It was put in long before that, before Fanning ever thought of Napster, back when NT 4 just came out. It's a way to force people to use NT Server vs. NT Workstation. NT Server has no client limit, and you pay for that.
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.