Quoting Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):

> 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? 

At the risk of repeating myself, I believe I saw (in the quoted EULA
text) two classes of prohibitions:

1.  You are prohibited from using the Microsoft toolchain as a whole
(e.g., the compiler) to process codebases you or others create that are
under copyleft terms.  The claimed basis for this prohibition is
contract obligations that you allegedly assume as a developer who
purchases (e.g.) Microsoft Visual Studio.NET 2003.

2.  You are prohibited from distributing components of the toolkit
(e.g., runtime libraries) to be used with copylefted codebases.  The
claimed basis for this prohibition is Microsoft Corporation's copyright
title to the referenced components.

To further reiterate:  The above understanding is merely what I infer
from others' comments and excerpts -- and exhausts my interest in
Microsoft Corporation's current proprietary-licensing follies.  (I have
not purchased any such tools; it is vastly unlikely that I would do so.)

"Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go and 
make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window 
and scream out it with operatic force, volume, and decorum, and then return to 
the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul?" -- The Cube, forum3000.org
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Reply via email to