Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Message-ID: <3B336024.6020002@ece.gatech.edu> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:11:32 -0400 From: "Charles S. Wilson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:0.9.1) Gecko/20010607 Netscape6/6.1b1 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: The Jetman CC: Randall R Schulz , cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: The Best EULA Ever References: <007801c0fb06$6bb0d360$3201a8c0 AT eagle> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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