This is probably true. But, the legal basis for the GPL's control over re-distribution or subsequent distribution is that the underlying work is either a derivative of the original or the original itself. What is Microsoft's legal basis? Are they claiming that all works created with their visual programming tools are derivative works of the tool? derivative works of the visual programming language? Or, something else? I suspect that if their licenses reach out to control distribution terms of the copyright protected work developed by the end-user...then...Houston, we have a problem.
- Rod ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen C. North" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 8:09 PM Subject: Re: Which license to use for MFC based software? > Isn't the INTENT of the GPL to be incompatible with things like > the Microsoft EULA? And the INTENT of the Microsoft EULA to > be incompatible with the GPL? So this question is really > about defeating the purpose of these licenses. I don't see > where that's in the spirit of agreeing to them. Why do it? > > Stephen North > -- > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
