Thank you for drawing my attention to the MS EULAs. They are really
vile. The section that you describe was introduced with one of the
VS.NET compilers. On my computer at work I have VS 6.0 and VS.NET 2003
installed. The (German version of the) VS.NET 2003 EULA contains the
sections you quote, but they are not present in the VS 6.0 EULA. But
the VS6.0 EULA includes two other interesting passages. One says that
I may only develop applications that are targeted for running under
Microsoft Windows operating systems, and the other says that I'm not
allowed to write text processing or spread sheet applications.

So from a first superficial look it seems that I can use VS 6.0 in
order to develop GPLs applications, and that I can distribute the
source code and the compiled version of the application under the GPL
as long as the executables use the MSVCRT and MFC libraries as linked
libraries (vs. static linking), and as long as I don't include the
MSVCRT and MFC libraries with my software.

I'm wondering if the EU or the DoJ has ever looked into these EULAs...


Guten Tag Rick Moen,

am Dienstag, 1. Juni 2004 um 20:02 schrieben Sie:

RM> Quoting Nick Moffitt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):

RM> [...]

>> The GPL allows you to grant permission to do new things, but won't
>> allow you to put new restrictions on users.  See GPL section 6.

RM> Nick, I believe Carsten is referring to a section in recent Microsoft
RM> SDKs' EULAs banning their use in developing (or distribution in
RM> conjunction with) "Potentially Viral Software" [sic].  A sub-clause of
RM> that section more-or-less defines the term "Publicly Available
RM> Software", approximating the concept of copyleft, and requires that
RM> "Recipient shall not distribute the Software, in whole or in part, in
RM> conjunction with any Publicly Available Software."

RM> Just in case Microsoft Corp.'s target is still unclear, that sub-clause
RM> goes on:

RM>    Publicly Available Software includes, without limitation, software
RM>    licensed or distributed under any of the following licenses or
RM>    distribution models, or licenses or distribution models similar to
RM>    any of the following: (A) GNU's General Public License (GPL) or
RM>    Lesser/Library GPL (LGPL), (B) The Artistic License (e.g., PERL), (C)
RM>    the Mozilla Public License, (D) the Netscape Public License, (E) the
RM>    Sun Community Source License (SCSL), and (F) the Sun Industry
RM>    Standards License (SISL)."

Mit freundlichen Grüssen
Carsten Kuckuk

license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Reply via email to