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."
Forbidden Uses (Score:5, Interesting)
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
MS trying to make us violate their EULA? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yet network and internet filesharing is still built into Windows XP...
All depends on what you need... (Score:4, Interesting)
Will this change anything? (Score:2, Interesting)
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...
percent of license dealing with user's rights (Score:3, Interesting)
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'...
Re:Forbidden Uses (Score:3, Interesting)
XP home edition cannot be used as a webserver or fileserver.
You can use XP Pro for your webserving/file serving needs.
Home edition doesn't have IIS built into it. Only XP Pro does.
The comparison was between the XP home edition EULA and GPL.
How does it compare to other OS? (Score:3, Interesting)
Anybody like to cite interesting portions of the EULA of those systems?
Different 'End Users' For Each License (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Agencies/Companies requiring EULA type licenses. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Get a name, and get real (Score:2, Interesting)
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 ).
Re:Forbidden Uses (Score:1, Interesting)
I have XP Pro and it doesn't have any clause about webservers or fileservers.
how a monopoly values it's users (Score:5, Interesting)
Some features about software covered by the EULA:
Really Apples vs Oranges? (Score:4, Interesting)
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?)
EULA (Score:2, Interesting)
I mean, if i print the MS EULA, am I making an illegal copy ?
Microsoft's EULA's shouldn't be enforceable (Score:3, Interesting)
After getting all the paperwork done, getting the loan from the bank, and even having the realtor say "It's all yours," I went to move in. Surprisingly, I discovered a note on the front door of my new house.
It read "Although you have purchased the physical property and the materials used in building this house, the architectural designs are still copyrighted by us. Because of this, we reserve the right to tell you how you may use it. By opening this door and entering the house, you agree to abide by the terms of this agreement."
It went on for five pages, but some of the points in there were the following:
-You may not use your front porch to say anything negative about the realtor.
-You must call us up to get permission if you wish to modify the house in any way (e.g. install new cabinets, doorknobs, shower heads, light bulbs)
-We may place hidden video cameras in the house to collect information about how it's being used.
-You may sell the house to another buyer only once.
and of course my personal favorite:
-We may change the terms of this agreement at any time by posting them on our website.
Okay, obviously I'm lying here. None of this really happened. But my point is that the agreement on the front door would have been legally unenforceable. It was not presented at the time of the purchase, it was never signed by me, and if they tried to sue me for breaking the agreement, they would be laughed out of court.
And yet, every one of these points have had similar clauses in Microsoft software licenses. Furthermore, the EULA is not signed at the time of purchase. I never even see it until I install the software. What's the difference between the EULA and this hypothetical note on the door? In my opinion, neither of them should be legal.
So if the EULA can change at any time... (Score:3, Interesting)
The second would be that I am bound to whatever the EULA is at the time I am found to not be in compliance with it. Again that doesn't seem to be legaly binding either, as I agree to what the EULA at the time I agree, not at the time it is used against me.
I definetly not, nor was I ever, a student of law, any lawer types out there can tell me how I can bound to a contract that can change at any time?
Don't Think So (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Mod Parent Up! (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:cannot be used as a webserver (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Forbidden Uses (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not sure if the same is true for XP, but in 2000 Pro the IIS didn't allow to create virtual hosts either. Only one site and that's it.
Of course, with a 10 connection limit, there's not much point in having virtual webs, except for testing purposes, maybe.
Re:It would be nice if they would simplify them (Score:3, Interesting)
The GPL is really summarized as:
Meanwhile, the MS EULA is pretty much just
Both licenses pretty much say:
Test Case? (Score:2, Interesting)
- 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.
Of course it makes sense for MS (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Don't Think So (Score:4, Interesting)
MS spreads the same FUD. It's simply trying to counterattack when you are under attack. What should the people do? just bend over and take it when MS launches an attack on you?