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."

Re:It would be nice if they would simplify them

[News for nerds]

>GPL: "Do what you want with it, but give
>credit where credit is due"

It's not GPL, but good old (not current) BSD license.

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.

Re:wait...

[jkrise]

...more like comparing sweet apples to sour apples!

In summary...

[sheldon]

GPL protects rights of users at expense of developers.

XP EULA protects rights of developers at expense of users.

Re:News for nerds?

[Stuart Gibson]

I don't think the point of posting this to /. was to show that mainstream outlets are running pieces like this for consumption of the peons, indicating that free/oss is getting real coverage, not to show us that there are differences.

Goblin

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

Re:"comparing" (for a good reason)

[gosand]

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?

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."

Re:It would be nice if they would simplify them

[cyber_rigger]

GPL "Make sure that others can do what you have been able to do."

MS "Make sure that others can't do what you haven't been able to do"

Re:Different 'End Users' For Each License

[ctid]

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.

Re:Forbidden Uses

[spanky1]

XP Pro has IIS, but it cannot be used as a "real" web server or file server. XP Pro is limited to 10 connections. Also, MS tells you to not use it in this role because they want people using Windows Server as much as possible.

Re:"comparing"?!?!

[anthony_dipierro]

The GPL is not an EULA

I've used many pieces of software which wouldn't allow me to use them without clicking "I Agree" to the GPL. How is that not an EULA?

You're not thinking like an MS business person:

[burgburgburg]

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.

Re:"comparing"?!?!

[Chris Burke]

It does:
One transfer of ownership allowed, no copying.

Next question?

Do you know the difference between distributing (making copies of) and transfering ownership (moving around one copy)?

The MS EULA does not dictate distribution terms (actually, it does -- it says you can't distribute. ;)

Follow up

[Flamesplash]

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.

Re:"comparing"?!?!

[Chris Burke]

I've used many pieces of software which wouldn't allow me to use them without clicking "I Agree" to the GPL. How is that not an EULA?

Because you're not violating anything if you get around having to click on that? Treating the GPL like an EULA doesn't make it an EULA. :)

BTW, what apps were these?

Re:Follow up

[ctid]

Yeah, I see your point, but the real issue here is that it's completely meaningless for the article to compare "percentages" of the licences. What on earth could that possibly mean? When I read it earlier, I thought the article was very interesting in the main, except for this completely idiotic "numerical analysis" tacked onto the front - as if that somehow gives the qualitative analysis validity. Bizarre.

Re:There is an error in the article!

[Pharmboy]

Hmm, the 'real' phrase is pretty ambiguous, especially for a license. Is the implication that MS is warning the user that the software isn't fit for those purposes? Or is it still meant as a restriction on what MS wants their software used for?

I will leave the idea of MS software being "fit" for any purpose to the MS bashers. But it appears more like a way to say nothing while implying much, to keep people from doing what they have the legal right to do, and MS can't stop them from doing.

Re:It would be nice if they would simplify them

[sketerpot]

I'm just curious, but what would be the point of reverse-engineering GPL binaries? The GPL, as you pointed out, says that you have to make the source code available to people you have distribute the binary to. And anyway, if you really wanted to reverse-engineer a GPLed binary, you could just compile from source and reverse-engineer what comes out of your compiler.

Re:Don't Think So

[Malcontent]

Nice set of arguments there.

1) Ms puts things in their EULA so that they won't have to provide support.
2) No one ever reads EULA.
3) People misunderstant the EULA
4) MS will never enfor the EULA.
5) You can ignore the parts the of EULA you don't like.
6) The EULA is unenforcable.

and finally.

7) Use another product.

Hey! Number 7 is what this topic was all about in the first place.

Wake up

[mdielmann]

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?

Re:News for nerds?

[gerf]

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

What i really want to know is whether old 'apples' are still good. To be more specific, it would be nice for them to compare Win2k's Eula (with service packs), to that of XP. The only reason right now that i don't go with XP is that i can't change my hardware willy-nilly like i do quite often. I have legal copies of everything (campus-wide license), so i really don't like the fact that they can tell me what i can/cannot do with products, my hardware, which they have nothing to do with.

Re:Wake up

[tuffy]

The term viral referes to the fact that the GPL spreads to whatever it touches.

A vaccine also spreads throughout your system, should you choose to take it. The key difference is that a virus will attempt to spread of its own accord but a vaccine requires the conscious effort of the user to spread. You can't "accidentally" include GPLed code in your programs, nor will GPLed programs intentionally write GPLed code into your programs.

Privacy Concerns

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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.

Difference is more notable to a community

[ciaran_o_riordan]

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

What the world really needs...

[0xB00F]

are more laywers pretending to be IT people.

From the article:

Also, since we are not lawyers, we thought we would try and map the contents of the licences into words and meanings that IT and management can understand,

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.

Re:Forbidden Uses

[mpe]

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.

An EULA is entirely redundent here. Since it would simply duplicate copyright law. You might just as well sticker every physical object you own with "you may not take this without permission"....

Re:Wake up

[mpe]

You can't "accidentally" include GPLed code in your programs, nor will GPLed programs intentionally write GPLed code into your programs.

Or even into your data. Some proprietary applications claim to apply an EULA to the data you use them with.

Various points to consider:

[burgburgburg]

1) The final binding EULA is on the disk in the box. Nothing on their literature, nothing on their web site, nothing that their salespeople tell you represents the final binding EULA. You don't see the final binding EULA until installation

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?

Re:Don't Think So

[Malcontent]

"Once there, they did the same thing anybody alive would have done, tried to remain on top."

I really don't think this is true. I don't think everybody is as greedy and evil as the MS execs are. You seem to think that there are no ethical business people in the world but I don't agree with you.

The vast majority of business owners would not resort to illegal tactics to improve or sustain their market share. Sure Enron, MS, Worldcom and a handful of businesses are perpetrating fraud and crimes but it's not fair to taint every business person with the same brush.

""Woo I hate Microsoft! Everybody like me because I appear smarter for it!""

It's not about being smarter, just more moral.