The Best EULA Ever
Charles S. Wilson
Fri Jun 22 08:11:00 GMT 2001
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
> 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
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.
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
More information about the Cygwin