Re: The Best EULA Ever

["Charles S. Wilson" <cwilson at ece dot gatech dot edu>]

The Jetman wrote:

>     IANAL, but as I read it, the license stipulates that the (beta) sware 
> can't be *distributed* w/ "potentially viral software", which since it 
> is in beta form, is not at all unreasonable.  They simply don't want 
> beta sware to be relied upon or propagated after the beta test period.  
> If nothing else, it is their intellectual property as much as anything 
> created under GPL is the intellectual property of those creators, so they 
> are entitled to make those distinctions.


Your analysis is [mostly] correct for section (1)(c)(i), which reads 
[Recipient's license rights to the Software are conditioned upon 
Recipient] "(i) not distributing such Software, in whole or in part, in 
conjunction with Potentially Viral Software (as defined below)"

But, they don't disallow distibuting the beta sware if you use 
closed-source tools and libs and don't license your code under a 
"potentially viral license".  So...the beta will still be propagated and 
relied on after the test period. (Of course, section (3)(b)(i) requires 
beta users "to promptly upgrade to and obtain a license for the 
commercially released version of the Software when it becomes generally 
available to the public" and section (3)(b) restricts such distribution 
"provided that for the purposes of such deployment, the Application is 
hosted by an Approved Hoster."  That should cut down on the time window 
within which the beta sware is distributed, and should also cut down the 
scope of beta distribution.)

However, you completely ignore section (1)(c)(ii): Recipient's license 
rights to the Software are conditioned upon Recipient "(ii) not using 
Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software 
which includes the Software, in whole or in part."

It's clause (ii) that is the problem, and it basically means you aren't 
allowed use cygwin-gcc or even mingw to compile code, if that code links 
to the MITSDK.  Nor can you use a GPL'ed text editor (a "tool") to edit 
your code, if that code will link to the MITSDK.  Or RCS to manage your 
revisions.


>     Having said that, I vote this subj is declared OT and left to the forums 
> where ranting and raving about licenses and MSOFT bashing is welcome....Jet


That's fine, this topic doesn't really need discussion since very few 
people will EVER use the MITSDK-beta2.  However, there is NO indication 
that MSOFT plans to change this EULA with the final release of the 
MITSDK -- but even that probably doesn't affect cygwin.  The only reason 
I posted this info originally was to inform the Red Hat people, so that 
they would keep an eye on MSOFT's EULA-maneauvering.  What if a similar 
EULA was applied to the Windows XP core DLL's or Windows.NET dll's? 
(Hasn't happened yet, but the *RED HAT* people need to watch these 
developments.)

The rest of us don't.  And thus, this discussion can be taken off list 
or dropped; it needn't be continued on-list.  I've done what I wanted -- 
made the Red Hat people aware of the issue.  'Nuff said.

--Chuck


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple