Windows XP EULA Compared to GPL 428
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."
mirror (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It would be nice if they would simplify them (Score:5, Informative)
You're confusing GPL for the BSD license. The GPL is "1) Do what you want with it, 2) as long as derivative works are GPL as well (see 1)".
Ugh, forget this idiot. (Score:5, Informative)
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]
"comparing"?!?! (Score:5, Informative)
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?
There is an error in the article! (Score:5, Informative)
"cannot be used as a webserver or fileserver"
but
"shouldn't be ever used as a webserver or fileserver"
Re:MS trying to make us violate their EULA? (Score:5, Informative)
They are comparing the XP Home edition EULA.
The professional version which you are using doesn't have that clause.
Re:"comparing"?!?! (Score:3, Informative)
It does:
One transfer of ownership allowed, no copying.
Next question?
Re:For the Click Lazy (Score:3, Informative)
The study itself [cyber.com.au] seems to be unaccessable, but you can find a html version [google.com] in Google's [google.com] cache.
Re:puts paid? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Forbidden Uses (Score:3, Informative)
Well, there is a huge difference in a fileserver and MS file sharing. I do believe that they mean a dedicated file server, dedicated to serving files over a network, whereas normal file sharing for home users would just include the odd file transported over the network, while the main use of the computer is home/office use. Thus cramming a load of 200gB HDs in a case, installing WinXP on it and chucking it in a corner to chew away on serving files indefinitely would be illegal, while using windows file sharing on your game PC would be allowed.
As for the actual reason behind it: Win2k (soon Win2k3) Server will most likely DOES allow being set up as a file server and webserver and what not. And you WILL pay for the ability to do that, while it's basically exactly the same as the WinXP abilities. It's nothing but cold hard cash; if you want a file server, cough up the $999 required for Microsoft Windows 2000 Server [microsoft.com] compared to the $299 of Microsoft Windows XP Professional [microsoft.com]
Re:MS trying to make us violate their EULA? (Score:2, Informative)
1.3 Device Connections. You may permit a maximum of ten (10)
computers or other electronic devices (each a "Device") to
connect to the Workstation Computer to utilize one or more of
the following services of the Software: File Services, Print
Services, Internet Information Services, and remote access
(including connection sharing and telephony services). The
ten connection maximum includes any indirect connections made
through "multiplexing" or other software or hardware which
pools or aggregates connections. This ten connection maximum
does not apply to any other uses of the Software.
Re:Vaccine not virus- stop the FUD madness (Score:3, Informative)
As I understand it, if you're not REDISTRIBUTING your software, you don't have to release any source code. So you could grab Apache (is that GPL? assuming it is), use all of it for your OWN INTERNAL Web Server, but adding some proprietary customizations for your web store, and not release your final source.
Now, if you tried to sell that new webserver software to other web stores, THEN you'd have to release your code, and then yes, IMHO, it is viral in a sense, but you didn't start from the ground up with your software either...
Re:It would be nice if they would simplify them (Score:4, Informative)
If you keep the derivative work in house, you don't have to GPL it.
Re:"comparing" (for a good reason) (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:"comparing"?!?! (Score:1, Informative)
The license may be transferred once, provided the recipient agrees to all of the terms in the license. These terms would include the right to transfer the license. Therefore, the recipient is also granted the right to transfer it to one person.
By including it they explicitly allow for resales and gifts to friends, but by carefully wording it they prevent are trying to nail down any loopholes that this term would create in their other limitations.
1) One-to-many transfer. I don't think this was a likely concern and I'm pretty certain it's covered elsewhere, but might be considered when playing CYA.
2) Transferring without manual, etc. where they would get blamed for the lack of said materials.
3) Two people using it in an alternative fashion by not using it simultaneously. Since you must remove it from the existing computer and transfer all materials simultaneosly this would be difficult. Also see #4
4) Leasing out their software. Each person individually aggrees to the terms but the person providing the software can't re-lease it after it's returned once.
Re:"comparing"?!?! (Score:4, Informative)
Many GPL-covered applications packaged for Mac OS X put a copy of the GPL in the "license" slot in the standard OS X installer package. This causes it to be displayed in the same way that an EULA would be on a proprietary package. I imagine this is the same on Windows GPLed programs that use the standard installer.
It doesn't really matter. As has been pointed out several times now, the GPL isn't an end-user license at all, and it isn't an agreement either. It's an assignment of permission to copy and make derivative works from a piece of copyrighted software -- a license, not a "license agreement".
The GPL isn't even a contract (certainly not a "contract of adhesion" like MS EULAs), and it it expressly disclaims covering the act of running the covered program [slashdot.org]. It presumes that if you came by your copy of the program legally (as by buying it or being given it) you already have the right to run it on your property -- the only things you need permission from the author to do are those things normally restricted by copyright law.
Comment removed (Score:2, Informative)
Re:"comparing"?!?! (Score:3, Informative)
Section 6 of the GPL (emphasis mine):
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
Section 5 of the licence (emphasis mine):
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, 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.
It seems to me that by forcing the user to accept the GPL you are removing the right of the user not to accept the GPL.
Re:"comparing" (for a good reason) (Score:3, Informative)
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".
Re:So if the EULA can change at any time... (Score:3, Informative)
Of course you only agree to th3 EULA that is current when you argee to it.
However it say that any UPDATES (read service packs) May come with an updated EULA, and that IF you install them you have to argree to the new EULA which could say anything about anything (even if the service pack does not update it)
Basically, if you want to keep current they hold you by the balls.
Re:LGPL (Score:3, Informative)
As I understand the LGPL, there are two situations:
Re:MS trying to make us violate their EULA? (Score:4, Informative)
I am going to assume based on the phrase "utilize the services of the Product" that the clause refers to network connections rather than the physical attachment of other devices to your computer. So, file-sharing and print-sharing and connection-sharing are okay, but only to ten other computers. It would be fairly easy to violate this term. Suppose you hold a LAN party and 14 of your friends come over. There's a recent patch for one of the games you plan to play, and you use a FileZilla FTP server [sourceforge.net] to share it across the LAN so everybody can get it without mucking about with Network Neighborhood. Boom, you've violated the license.
One of the other posters has suggested that the restriction only applies to the number of computers accessing yours at any given time -- so you could give access to thousands of different computers, so long as there were never more than ten connected at one moment. I don't have XP, so I couldn't say -- does Network Neighborhood have a built-in connection limit in WinXP? Anyway, that would only apply to Network Neighborhood. Using Apache or any of a whole slew of other server-type programs could invalidate your license pretty quick.
Btw, I lifted that bit of license clause from the original report, not the summary that Slashdot has linked to. Another poster supplied a mirror of the PDF file. [slashdot.org] It's lengthy, but worth reading.
Re:cannot be used as a webserver (Score:3, Informative)
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.
You forgot the part about considering: (Score:3, Informative)
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.