Microsoft prohibits free software tools for software development
-
As reported on slashdot, Microsoft has now announced that you can't use free software (source, libraries, or development tools) to develop software for the Mobile Internet Toolkit. Not only does MS prohibit you from using GPL'ed source code in your apps, they also prohibit using GPL'ed (or other free software) tools to develop your software, even if you don't redistribute them in your final application. This means that you can't use CVS to do revision management, emacs to edit your code, Bison and Flex to generate parsers and scanners, and you can't use Perl or Python for any part of the development process. People who hang out on Code Project have different opinions about free software, but it should be completely unacceptable to all of us for Microsoft to dictate what tools we use to develop software when using their SDKs. Here's the small print (from http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdn-files/027/001/516/eula_mit.htm, section 1, paragraph (c)):
Open Source. 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); and (ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in whole or in part. For purposes of the foregoing, “Potentially Viral Software” means software which is licensed pursuant to terms that: (x) create, or purport to create, obligations for Microsoft with respect to the Software or (y) grant, or purport to grant, to any third party any rights to or immunities under Microsoft’s intellectual property or proprietary rights in the Software. By way of example but not limitation of the foregoing, Recipient shall not distribute the Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with any Publicly Available Software. “Publicly Available Software” means each of (i) any software that contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any software that is distributed as free software, open source software (e.g. Linux) or similar licensing or distribution models; and (ii) any software that requires as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of such software that other software distributed with such software (A) be disclosed or distributed in source code form; (B) be licensed for the pur
-
As reported on slashdot, Microsoft has now announced that you can't use free software (source, libraries, or development tools) to develop software for the Mobile Internet Toolkit. Not only does MS prohibit you from using GPL'ed source code in your apps, they also prohibit using GPL'ed (or other free software) tools to develop your software, even if you don't redistribute them in your final application. This means that you can't use CVS to do revision management, emacs to edit your code, Bison and Flex to generate parsers and scanners, and you can't use Perl or Python for any part of the development process. People who hang out on Code Project have different opinions about free software, but it should be completely unacceptable to all of us for Microsoft to dictate what tools we use to develop software when using their SDKs. Here's the small print (from http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdn-files/027/001/516/eula_mit.htm, section 1, paragraph (c)):
Open Source. 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); and (ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in whole or in part. For purposes of the foregoing, “Potentially Viral Software” means software which is licensed pursuant to terms that: (x) create, or purport to create, obligations for Microsoft with respect to the Software or (y) grant, or purport to grant, to any third party any rights to or immunities under Microsoft’s intellectual property or proprietary rights in the Software. By way of example but not limitation of the foregoing, Recipient shall not distribute the Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with any Publicly Available Software. “Publicly Available Software” means each of (i) any software that contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any software that is distributed as free software, open source software (e.g. Linux) or similar licensing or distribution models; and (ii) any software that requires as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of such software that other software distributed with such software (A) be disclosed or distributed in source code form; (B) be licensed for the pur
Like the people on Slashdot, you're misinterpreting the license. The license must be taken as a whole, and not focusing on individual parts. What the license says is that you cannot include MS code in any "viral" license such as the GPL, doing such could potentially expose MS to a liability of GPLing their own code. What they're saying is nothing that isn't already illegal, but they're simply stating it in very direct terms. They are specifically saying that you may not relicense their code, and if you include the code in a GPL'd project, that is what you would be doing. They're also making a preemptive strike against tools which can enact a viral license on that which it processes. For instance, Borland employees have stated specifically that any code you develop with their Free Kylix IDE *MUST* be GPL'd. MS is simply denying the use of their code in such a circumstance. Yes, there's some hyperbole here, but in reality MS is simply just covering their ass against potential legal threats down the line.
-
Like the people on Slashdot, you're misinterpreting the license. The license must be taken as a whole, and not focusing on individual parts. What the license says is that you cannot include MS code in any "viral" license such as the GPL, doing such could potentially expose MS to a liability of GPLing their own code. What they're saying is nothing that isn't already illegal, but they're simply stating it in very direct terms. They are specifically saying that you may not relicense their code, and if you include the code in a GPL'd project, that is what you would be doing. They're also making a preemptive strike against tools which can enact a viral license on that which it processes. For instance, Borland employees have stated specifically that any code you develop with their Free Kylix IDE *MUST* be GPL'd. MS is simply denying the use of their code in such a circumstance. Yes, there's some hyperbole here, but in reality MS is simply just covering their ass against potential legal threats down the line.
Erik, Thanks for taking up my possible misreading. I may be wrong here, but I continue to think that I am correctly interpreting the terms. Let's focus on the following sentence: "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); and (ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in whole or in part. You can't make any redistributable that does not
#includeheaders from the SDK or link to object code from the SDK. Recipient software that compiles in source code from the Microsoft headers and links with Microsoft object libraries, will include the Software in part and thus be subject to the license terms. MS officials have been out doing whistle-stop tours in which they define the GPL and other free software licenses as "Potentially Viral Software" (although this license uses slightly different terminology, making a somewhat unclear distinction between "Potentially Viral" and "Publicly Available" software), but it's fair to say that there is a strong likelihood that CVS and Emacs are Potentially Viral Software. After all, the Artistic License is NOT like the GPL. It does not make Draconian demands on people who use Perl as part of closed-source packages, so there is no danger of this imposing any obligation upon Microsoft, yet they still prohibit it. You state that MS is simply "saying that you may not relicense their code, and if you include the code in a GPL'd project, that is what you would be doing," but the GPL itself specifically addresses this issue and tells people that they may not redistribute software that combines GPL code with other code (source or object) licensed under terms that conflict with the GPL:If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. ... It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distri
-
Erik, Thanks for taking up my possible misreading. I may be wrong here, but I continue to think that I am correctly interpreting the terms. Let's focus on the following sentence: "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); and (ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in whole or in part. You can't make any redistributable that does not
#includeheaders from the SDK or link to object code from the SDK. Recipient software that compiles in source code from the Microsoft headers and links with Microsoft object libraries, will include the Software in part and thus be subject to the license terms. MS officials have been out doing whistle-stop tours in which they define the GPL and other free software licenses as "Potentially Viral Software" (although this license uses slightly different terminology, making a somewhat unclear distinction between "Potentially Viral" and "Publicly Available" software), but it's fair to say that there is a strong likelihood that CVS and Emacs are Potentially Viral Software. After all, the Artistic License is NOT like the GPL. It does not make Draconian demands on people who use Perl as part of closed-source packages, so there is no danger of this imposing any obligation upon Microsoft, yet they still prohibit it. You state that MS is simply "saying that you may not relicense their code, and if you include the code in a GPL'd project, that is what you would be doing," but the GPL itself specifically addresses this issue and tells people that they may not redistribute software that combines GPL code with other code (source or object) licensed under terms that conflict with the GPL:If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. ... It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distri
My reading of the tools clause is this. When it refers to "viral tools" it means tools that infect their output, or in other words a tool which requires you to license or relicense its output to some specific license. MS is just covering their ass, and anticipating potential issues with viral licenses.
-
My reading of the tools clause is this. When it refers to "viral tools" it means tools that infect their output, or in other words a tool which requires you to license or relicense its output to some specific license. MS is just covering their ass, and anticipating potential issues with viral licenses.
I think they're doing a little more than CYA, I think they're doing FUD. The explanation of "potentially viral software" seems to be at odds with the prohibition from using potentially viral development tools -- how could compiling with gcc, for example, possibly create or purport to make licensing obligations on MS's part. Maybe compiling with gcc is ok, but the license is written in a way to make that unclear.
-
Erik, Thanks for taking up my possible misreading. I may be wrong here, but I continue to think that I am correctly interpreting the terms. Let's focus on the following sentence: "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); and (ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in whole or in part. You can't make any redistributable that does not
#includeheaders from the SDK or link to object code from the SDK. Recipient software that compiles in source code from the Microsoft headers and links with Microsoft object libraries, will include the Software in part and thus be subject to the license terms. MS officials have been out doing whistle-stop tours in which they define the GPL and other free software licenses as "Potentially Viral Software" (although this license uses slightly different terminology, making a somewhat unclear distinction between "Potentially Viral" and "Publicly Available" software), but it's fair to say that there is a strong likelihood that CVS and Emacs are Potentially Viral Software. After all, the Artistic License is NOT like the GPL. It does not make Draconian demands on people who use Perl as part of closed-source packages, so there is no danger of this imposing any obligation upon Microsoft, yet they still prohibit it. You state that MS is simply "saying that you may not relicense their code, and if you include the code in a GPL'd project, that is what you would be doing," but the GPL itself specifically addresses this issue and tells people that they may not redistribute software that combines GPL code with other code (source or object) licensed under terms that conflict with the GPL:If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. ... It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distri
I have to agree with you Johnathan. This goes way beyong 'covering up'. The important thing about any legal document is that there is no real concept of meaning. Legal documents are read by courts using a process called statuatory construction (or something to that effect.) For instance, in the election controversy here in the States, there was a large discussion on whether the choices made by Katherine Harris violated the statuatory construction of the law, or just an interpretation of the law. A statuatory violation indicates that there is no interpretation of the law that would make someones actions correct. The specific example in this case is the difference between the word 'shall' and 'may' in American law. 'Shall' indicates an obligation with no ambiguity. Whatever is listed must occur. 'May' is an optional act that is empowered by the law. The law regarding recounts was written with 'May order a recount' and not 'shall order a recount' so there was a lot of legal wrangling about interpretation. Had it been 'shall' then no legal posturing would have been required. In this case Recipient is defined as a developer who downloads the software. Recipient software is defined as the software that a developer writes to give to an end user. Potentially Viral software is defined as anything distributed under the licenses lists. The statement in the EULA (compacted by me reads) : Recipient’s[Your] license rights to the Software[SDK] are conditioned upon Recipient[YOU] not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools)[Emacs,CVS] to develop Recipient software which includes the Software{SDK], in whole[SDK] or in part.[headers or redistributable libraries] From a construction standpoint, there is nothing ambiguous in 'not using [open] software to develop software from this SDK. I am not a lawyer, but I have several friends who are (including the local District Attorney) and I have seen them work with exactly this type of agreement. When you agree to a contract you agree to what the contract says, not what it 'means'
-
Erik, Thanks for taking up my possible misreading. I may be wrong here, but I continue to think that I am correctly interpreting the terms. Let's focus on the following sentence: "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); and (ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in whole or in part. You can't make any redistributable that does not
#includeheaders from the SDK or link to object code from the SDK. Recipient software that compiles in source code from the Microsoft headers and links with Microsoft object libraries, will include the Software in part and thus be subject to the license terms. MS officials have been out doing whistle-stop tours in which they define the GPL and other free software licenses as "Potentially Viral Software" (although this license uses slightly different terminology, making a somewhat unclear distinction between "Potentially Viral" and "Publicly Available" software), but it's fair to say that there is a strong likelihood that CVS and Emacs are Potentially Viral Software. After all, the Artistic License is NOT like the GPL. It does not make Draconian demands on people who use Perl as part of closed-source packages, so there is no danger of this imposing any obligation upon Microsoft, yet they still prohibit it. You state that MS is simply "saying that you may not relicense their code, and if you include the code in a GPL'd project, that is what you would be doing," but the GPL itself specifically addresses this issue and tells people that they may not redistribute software that combines GPL code with other code (source or object) licensed under terms that conflict with the GPL:If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. ... It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distri
Ok, where did I put that damn dictionary? :rolleyes: cheers
-
As reported on slashdot, Microsoft has now announced that you can't use free software (source, libraries, or development tools) to develop software for the Mobile Internet Toolkit. Not only does MS prohibit you from using GPL'ed source code in your apps, they also prohibit using GPL'ed (or other free software) tools to develop your software, even if you don't redistribute them in your final application. This means that you can't use CVS to do revision management, emacs to edit your code, Bison and Flex to generate parsers and scanners, and you can't use Perl or Python for any part of the development process. People who hang out on Code Project have different opinions about free software, but it should be completely unacceptable to all of us for Microsoft to dictate what tools we use to develop software when using their SDKs. Here's the small print (from http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdn-files/027/001/516/eula_mit.htm, section 1, paragraph (c)):
Open Source. 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); and (ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in whole or in part. For purposes of the foregoing, “Potentially Viral Software” means software which is licensed pursuant to terms that: (x) create, or purport to create, obligations for Microsoft with respect to the Software or (y) grant, or purport to grant, to any third party any rights to or immunities under Microsoft’s intellectual property or proprietary rights in the Software. By way of example but not limitation of the foregoing, Recipient shall not distribute the Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with any Publicly Available Software. “Publicly Available Software” means each of (i) any software that contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any software that is distributed as free software, open source software (e.g. Linux) or similar licensing or distribution models; and (ii) any software that requires as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of such software that other software distributed with such software (A) be disclosed or distributed in source code form; (B) be licensed for the pur
As a person who makes his living writing windows code, I could not be considered an MS basher. I have great respect for Bill Gates and his engineers. But this practice of theirs of spreading FUD against their competitors is just downright embarrassing. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm darn sure that the purpose of this license is to associate the words "open source" and "virus" in the minds of the public and especially in the minds of the management suits of the world. MS is good enough to compete on merit. This childish behavior just makes them look weak. Jim :mad:
-
As a person who makes his living writing windows code, I could not be considered an MS basher. I have great respect for Bill Gates and his engineers. But this practice of theirs of spreading FUD against their competitors is just downright embarrassing. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm darn sure that the purpose of this license is to associate the words "open source" and "virus" in the minds of the public and especially in the minds of the management suits of the world. MS is good enough to compete on merit. This childish behavior just makes them look weak. Jim :mad:
Well said. I completely agree.
-
I think they're doing a little more than CYA, I think they're doing FUD. The explanation of "potentially viral software" seems to be at odds with the prohibition from using potentially viral development tools -- how could compiling with gcc, for example, possibly create or purport to make licensing obligations on MS's part. Maybe compiling with gcc is ok, but the license is written in a way to make that unclear.
The Tools clause does not talk about what license the code for the tool was written in, but rather the license the tool itself carries for its use. Some tools, for instance, Borland's "Open Edition" of Kylix force you to GPL any code you put through it, whether or not you use any of their code. The mere process of opening a source file in their IDE causes you to either relicense the code, or violate borlands license. MS is simply explicitly denying it's use in such a situation, making it easier for the developer to understand that they are violating MS's license if they do. You're right, MS is engaging in FUD, but they're also making a point. Licenses with these kinds of clauses can be dangerous, and you might not even realize you are violating them.
-
I have to agree with you Johnathan. This goes way beyong 'covering up'. The important thing about any legal document is that there is no real concept of meaning. Legal documents are read by courts using a process called statuatory construction (or something to that effect.) For instance, in the election controversy here in the States, there was a large discussion on whether the choices made by Katherine Harris violated the statuatory construction of the law, or just an interpretation of the law. A statuatory violation indicates that there is no interpretation of the law that would make someones actions correct. The specific example in this case is the difference between the word 'shall' and 'may' in American law. 'Shall' indicates an obligation with no ambiguity. Whatever is listed must occur. 'May' is an optional act that is empowered by the law. The law regarding recounts was written with 'May order a recount' and not 'shall order a recount' so there was a lot of legal wrangling about interpretation. Had it been 'shall' then no legal posturing would have been required. In this case Recipient is defined as a developer who downloads the software. Recipient software is defined as the software that a developer writes to give to an end user. Potentially Viral software is defined as anything distributed under the licenses lists. The statement in the EULA (compacted by me reads) : Recipient’s[Your] license rights to the Software[SDK] are conditioned upon Recipient[YOU] not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools)[Emacs,CVS] to develop Recipient software which includes the Software{SDK], in whole[SDK] or in part.[headers or redistributable libraries] From a construction standpoint, there is nothing ambiguous in 'not using [open] software to develop software from this SDK. I am not a lawyer, but I have several friends who are (including the local District Attorney) and I have seen them work with exactly this type of agreement. When you agree to a contract you agree to what the contract says, not what it 'means'
The error in your interpretaion is that MS specifically says that "potentially viral" means any software which tries to impose an obligation on the MS Software to be relicensed. That has to be used in context with prior text which references it "(e.g. tools)". It only applies to tools which try to impose an obligation on MS's code. That's it. Not tools which have viral licenses which do not impose an obligation.
-
As a person who makes his living writing windows code, I could not be considered an MS basher. I have great respect for Bill Gates and his engineers. But this practice of theirs of spreading FUD against their competitors is just downright embarrassing. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm darn sure that the purpose of this license is to associate the words "open source" and "virus" in the minds of the public and especially in the minds of the management suits of the world. MS is good enough to compete on merit. This childish behavior just makes them look weak. Jim :mad:
In the minds of the public? You think the public actually READS EULA's? You think the public reades development SDK EULA's?
-
In the minds of the public? You think the public actually READS EULA's? You think the public reades development SDK EULA's?
Don't you? OMG am I weird? Oh dear.... Totally right though, I have only ever met one person in my entire life who reads SDK EULA's and that was their job (legal department of a development company). On that note who ever does read the copyright, terms of service etc. agreements? When I joined CP I don't even remember agreeing to its terms of services (CP requires good common sense "thou shalt not irritate people", not a lawyers degree to use it :). Or what about your Hotmail account, or Amazon.com? I hear Hailstorm (along with Passport) has some very friendly terms of service agreement clauses. Not too mention Amazon selling off your personal details... viva la small print! regards, Paul Watson Cape Town, South Africa e: paulmwatson@email.com w: vergen.org