OT: Mobile Internet Toolkit EULA

[Tim Hammerquist]

Steve Holden <sholden at holdenweb.com> graced us by uttering:
[ snip ]
>> Limitations on the product distributed is nothing new.  OTOH, Microsoft
>> has just attempted to make it _ILLEGAL_ to use a python binary I've
>> compiled myself (though ActivePython is probably alright).  _This_ is
>> what a _huge_ number of people are upset about.
[ snip ]
>> Rebuttals?
>>
> Since the Python license is as liberal as it is, there is no reason why a
> Python binary has to be GPL, just because (say) you compiled it with gcc.
> But that apart, your description of the terms and conditions of Microsoft's
> EULA seems fair, and less biased than, say, my own sclerotic reactions.

I was referring more to, say, a copy of Python 1.6.1 I might have laying
around whose license is _explicitly_ GPL-compatible, making the above
license even more averse to it than Python's current release.  Also, the
license does not limit 'Publicly Available Software' to GPL; it
includes, as stated previously, software that

#v+
    contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from
    any software that is distributed as free software, open source
    software ... or _similiar_licensing_or_distribution_model_.
#v-

I cannot (under this license):

  - _use_ any OS software to develop the project. This includes:
      * editing any MIT file in Vim
      * search/modify/operate on any MIT files using tar, gzip,
        perl, etc.
      * telnet into a Win32 box from a linux box to view and/or
        edit any MIT files.
  - distribute anything created using MS MIT under and GPL "or similar
    licensing or distribution model." (of course)
  - I cannot include anything under the aforementioned licenses in the
    same package as anything developed using MS MIT.  M$ has required
    that it be a separate product, thereby dictating what my package
    contents may/may not include.

And AFAIK, a program compiled by gcc (GPL) is _not_ required to be
GPL itself. So you are correct in this. Microsoft may still whine
that you are _using_ a GPL'd product with their system, whether or
not that product affects your end-product's license.

Tim Hammerquist
-- 
"Supported" is an MS term that means the function exists. The fact
that it always fails means that it is an exercise for the programmer.
    -- Sarathy, p5p