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."

Comments

News for nerds?

[watzinaneihm]

"Voila! Apples are different from Oranges" said American Agricultural Research magazine today.

mirror

[oever]

Here's a mirror of the pdf file.

Ugh, forget this idiot.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Forbidden Uses

[Shadow2097]

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.

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

"comparing"?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Conflates GPL and LGPL

[p3d0]

"Under Linux, many of the libraries are released as LGPL software, which allows non-Open Source software...to be compiled and linked to these programming libraries. This software then can remain as proprietary, non-Open Source software, even though it directly links to GPL software," the study pointed out, effectively killing the idea that the GPL has some kind of viral properties.

Er, the LGPL is not the GPL. It's a different license. The GPL does have viral properties, and that's the whole point of it.

MS trying to make us violate their EULA?

[unborracho]

• cannot be used as a webserver or fileserver

I'll be the first to admit that I skipped over the EULA when I installed Windows XP, so I was very surprised when i read this. From what I can recall, this has been implemented in Windows since Windows 95.

Yet network and internet filesharing is still built into Windows XP...

Re:MS trying to make us violate their EULA?

[Utopia]

You are not in voilation.

They are comparing the XP Home edition EULA.
The professional version which you are using doesn't have that clause.

There is an error in the article!

[borgdows]

WinXP EULA doesn't say...

"cannot be used as a webserver or fileserver"

but

"shouldn't be ever used as a webserver or fileserver"

Vaccine not virus- stop the FUD madness

[abe ferlman]

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.

Re:In summary...

[listen]

More like:

GPL protects the rights of users,
grants external developers extra rights,
copyright holder retains rights

EULA restricts users rights,
restricts external developers,
grants extra rights to the copyright
holder from the external users.

*BSD* protects the rights of users,
grants external developers even more
extra rights than GPL
copyright holder retains original rights

Mono SUCKS!

[Mr. Underbridge]

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. [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.

how a monopoly values it's users

[sapgau]

From the article:
Some features about software covered by the EULA:

• copying was prohibited
• could be used only on one computer with a maximum of 2 processors
• cannot be used as a webserver or fileserver
• required registration after 30 days
• could stop working if hardware changes were made
• updates could change the EULA if the company so wished
• could be transferred to another user only once
• the new user must agree to the license terms (no specification how this could be achieved)
• imposes limitations on reverse engineering
• 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.
• warranty for the first 90 days
• fixes, updates or patches carry no warranty

Re:Apache on Windows

[GregWebb]

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.