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....
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"
The study itself seems to be unaccessable, but you can find a html version in Google's cache.
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...
In this context, it means "discredits".
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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...
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.
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?
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.