Lawrence Rosen wrote:
John Cowan wrote:
Their licenses can reach out to control what you and your whole family
had for dinner on June 1, 1999. At least according to them.
That is unreasonable. No court would enforce that.
On the other hand, perhaps they can control what I have for
Lawrence Rosen said on Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 06:23:54PM -0800,:
That is unreasonable. No court would enforce that.
Why not?
We are dealing with license a particular company applied to software
used to _develop_ other software, arn't we? And is not the developer
running a business here?
Does anybody have a link to the Microsoft SDK EULA's in question, I'd like to
study the document.
Cheers,
Robert.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Robert,
I only have the German language versions on my computer. Would that be
of any help for you?
Carsten
Guten Tag Robert Osfield,
am Mittwoch, 2. Juni 2004 um 16:27 schrieben Sie:
RO Does anybody have a link to the Microsoft SDK EULA's in question, I'd like to
RO study the document.
RO
Quoting Robert Osfield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Does anybody have a link to the Microsoft SDK EULA's in question, I'd
like to study the document.
The licensing page at which Microsoft initially made the full EULA
available disappeared shortly after the story broke (June 2001) -- and
you will see
Carsten Kuckuk said on Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 05:12:22PM +0200,:
Robert,
I only have the German language versions on my computer. Would that be
of any help for you?
am Mittwoch, 2. Juni 2004 um 16:27 schrieben Sie:
RO Does anybody have a link to the Microsoft SDK EULA's in
g
Well, I'm in Germany, and on my computer I have a German language
version of the EULA. Who holds the copyright on German language
version? The translator or the original author? If the translation has
been done in the US it's work for hire, and the right are most likely
with Microsoft. But all
Carsten Kuckuk said on Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 08:46:20PM +0200,:
done by a German on German soil, so German copyright laws apply
which are different from US laws. And the translator was probably
paid by Microsoft Germany GmbH in Munich, not the Seattle one.
Enter corporate strategy.
[snip]
Basic) and I will be releasing it under the GPL. Is dynamically
linking my program with the Visual C++ (or Visual Basic) run-time
library permitted under the GPL?
Forgive me, if I am responding to the wrong question. The thread to this
discussion is a little hard to follow. The answer
Quoting Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Forgive me, if I am responding to the wrong question. The thread to this
discussion is a little hard to follow.
Indeed, and I'll attempt to remedy that, below.
The answer is yes, if the question is strictly analyzed as a copyright
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
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: Which license to use for MFC based software?
Quoting Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Forgive me, if I am responding to the wrong question. The thread to this
discussion is a little hard to follow.
Indeed, and I'll attempt
- 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
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
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. scripsit:
The problem identified sounds less like a legal issue than it does a
potential programmer's nightmare.
It's both. You see, Microsoft (and all other proprietary software
companies I know) absolutely deny that you have any rights in their
software of any kind
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. scripsit:
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.
Their licenses can reach out to control what you and your whole family
had for dinner on
John Cowan wrote:
Their licenses can reach out to control what you and your whole family
had for dinner on June 1, 1999. At least according to them.
That is unreasonable. No court would enforce that.
On the other hand, perhaps they can control what I have for dinner AFTER I
enter into a
To what extent have the GPL or the Microsoft EULA (in its
many versions) been tested in open court?
If the parties to a contract decide, at some point, that they
are not obliged to honor that contract or disagree about its
meaning, legal action is the ultimate resolution, isn't it?
And if legal
Stephen C. North scripsit:
And if legal action isn't possible, then the contract actually
has no teeth?
A fine question. My father wrote an essay about it called Law without
Force, published in a Festschrift for Hans Kelsen (a typical joke
of my father's, considering that he was blatantly
As far as I understand, I can't use the GPL for any open source
project I write using Microsoft's MFC. Which alternatives do I have
regarding licenses, that come as close as possible to GPLing my own
sources?
Carsten
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
begin Carsten Kuckuk quotation:
As far as I understand, I can't use the GPL for any open source
project I write using Microsoft's MFC. Which alternatives do I have
regarding licenses, that come as close as possible to GPLing my own
sources?
You may grant special exception to the GPL
Quoting Nick Moffitt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
[...]
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.
Nick, I believe Carsten is referring to a section in recent Microsoft
SDKs' EULAs banning their use in developing
Nick Moffitt wrote:
begin Carsten Kuckuk quotation:
As far as I understand, I can't use the GPL for any open source
project I write using Microsoft's MFC. Which alternatives do I have
regarding licenses, that come as close as possible to GPLing my own
sources?
You may grant
Nick,
Thank you for your reply. In the meantime I went to the GPL FAQ page
(which I should have done before posting here) and found this
paragraph which supports your interpretations:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WindowsRuntimeAndGPL
[..]
I'm writing a Windows application with
Rick,
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
CK == Carsten Kuckuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
CK So from a first superficial look it seems that I can use VS
CK 6.0 in order to develop GPLs applications, and that I can
CK distribute the source code and the compiled version of the
CK application under the GPL as long as the
Evan,
My real problem is, that I'd like to contribute to a GPL'd project. My
contribution would be a standalone program that is GUI intensive.
During daytime I work as a C++/MFC/database programmer and am very
familiar with MS VS as my main tool. So implementing that standalone
program using VS
27 matches
Mail list logo
