OT: Mobile Internet Toolkit EULA

[Steve Holden]

"Tim Hammerquist" <tim at vegeta.ath.cx> wrote ...
>
> Guido Stepken <stepken at little-idiot.de> graced us by uttering:
>
> [ snipped excerpt from MS MIT EULA ]
>
> > Thanx lots for checking this out ! Hmmm, that means, that it is
forbidden
> > to produce (distribute) code, consisting of (L)GPL Software and
Microsoft
> > OpenSource. One is not allowed to mix code. BSD License + Microsoft
Code,
> > that's OK !
> > Any ideas, why ?
>
> The BSD license is unrestrictive. I can take an entire BSD-licensed
> file, cut-and-paste it into my own project, sign, seal, and
> deliver...and not even have to mention where I got it.
>
> This is fine by Microsoft because it means if they find anything they
> want somewhere inside a Berkeley Quality Software project, they can just
> take it.
>
Yup. But as for giving something back, "Hey, that's ours!"

> What I think was even more appalling was the restriction on
>
> <citation>
> :   (ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to
> :        develop Recipient software which includes the Software,
> :        in whole or in part.
> </citation>
>
> This means I can't
>
>   - test a script using a perl binary that falls under the (default)
>     Artistic License.
>   - test a script using a Python binary that falls under the GPL
>     compatible license.
>   - _use_ Vim or Emacs to edit _any_ file in the project I'm developing.
>   - make a tarball of a directory tree using GNU tar or GNU gzip.
>   - ...and so on
>
> 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.
>
> Opinions?

<soapbox>
Microsoft is a rabidly commercial organisation with little idea of the
trouble it is storing up for itself. If I were a stockholder I would be
incensed at the behavior of the corporate officers. They still deny any
wrongdoing after having been declared a monopolist in the US courts. They
still attempt to impose unreasonable terms in licenses.

One measure of the success (or otherwise) of the DoJ settlement, should it
go through, will be the Samba team's ability to shoehorn a proper protocol
description out of MS. Given the current verbiage, the Samba team aren't
optimistic.

I firmly believe Microsoft will be the first IBM of the 21st century, and
some unstoppable market force will unseat them before they realise how wrong
they are. Look how nearly they missed the Internet boat, believing they
could turn the Internet into a Microsoft network. The really dumb feature is
that they don't appear to have learned much from all that.

</soapbox>

> 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.

regards
 Steve
--
http://www.holdenweb.com/