5 ms·

If you read the Visual Studio EULA, which I did when the first Visual Studio .Net version came out, it described in a long and complicated text a certain type o

by cm3 10y ago

If you read the Visual Studio EULA, which I did when the first Visual Studio .Net version came out, it described in a long and complicated text a certain type of software which you aren't allowed to compile with it. I don't know if this changed in the meantime because I have only read one EULA and that was it, but the software described neatly formulated the conditions of copyleft licensing. So in essence Visual Studio .Net forbade one from building things like GPL software. I'm sure the Visual Studio .Net EULA is available somewhere to dig this up. What I'm getting at is that this isn't the worst license from a commercial-first software distributor.

AlexeyBrin 10y ago
I never heard of such a thing as VS prohibiting the compilation of GPL code.
- cm3 10y ago
  It didn't say GPL. There was a long section describing code of certain kind, which was a long-winded description for the rules of copyleft, and then a reference to that type (call it X) which may not be fed into MSVC. Like I said this was the EULA for Visual Studio .Net (the first version) and probably more than a decade ago. And as I said also, I don't have the newer EULAs so cannot look for the same section in those. I wish I had saved a copy back then but I wasn't as professional, sorry.
  - AlexeyBrin 10y ago
    > So in essence Visual Studio .Net forbade one from building things like GPL software. I'm sure the Visual Studio .Net EULA is available somewhere to dig this up. Maybe I miss something, but you literally said that they didn't allow one to build GPL software.
    - cm3 10y ago
      I wrote "things like GPL" and said it described the copyleft licensing without naming the prominent license. But I cannot find a version of the first (2001 or 2002) EULA, so it's possible my memory isn't exact. Edit: All I could find https://yro.slashdot.org/story/02/08/04/132221/more-ms-eula-fun https://yro.slashdot.org/story/02/08/04/132221/more-ms-eula-...
      - cm3 10y ago
        Anyway, given the Microsoft of today, it's doubtful they would try something like that, so this isn't relevant anymore, but it demonstrates that EULAs are written in the language of laws and unrealistic for users to read and grasp correctly. MIT and ISC licenses are simple to understand, whereas GPL and Apache are long and some sections are hard to follow without a law degree. Same issue with EULAs.
    - tobltobs 10y ago
      You missed the word 'like'. As he is no lawyer he avoided to give a concrete example, but he tried to describe the lawyer speak with a more understandable example. What is your interpretation of the EULA text?
justinclift 10y ago
Would this be the thing you're referring to? https://wiki.wireshark.org/Development/MSVC7 About a paragraph down that page, it mentions the concept of Visual Studio 2003 not being allowed to compiled GPL code, stating that's a misconception. The original EULA doesn't seem to be online any more though, so it's hard to tell.
- cm3 10y ago
  I don't know because I can't find the EULA I saw in the installer dialog on Windows myself, so it's pointless for me to speculate, but it's funny because it's the first and last time I read a EULA, while I was waiting for the installer to finish. Since it's written in legal language, and I was much younger and inexperienced/uneducated, I might have fallen for the same incorrect interpretation. Seeing how wireshark has a separate section and I was able to find a Slashdot post, it seems I wasn't the only one who found something curious.
drewcrawford 10y ago
My Google-fu produced the following Microsoft ISVLA from 2009 (not VS-related, but this language appears in several of their EULAs from the 2000s): http://www.microsoftvolumelicensing.com/userights/Downloader.aspx?DocumentId=2322&usg=AFQjCNG2sa-QyMP5OMqVAnYfBshhEh4FFg&sig2=K2lXPncsOELGGf8tiLiwMQ http://www.microsoftvolumelicensing.com/userights/Downloader... > Potentially Viral Software. Your license rights under Agreement and/or Academic Agreement are conditioned upon your compliance with the following terms: You must not: (a) Integrate or otherwise incorporate Potentially Viral Software into, or combine Potentially Viral Software with, any Licensed Product, Software Documentation, or derivative work thereof; (b) distribute Potentially Viral Software in conjunction with any Licensed Product, Software Documentation, or derivative work thereof; or (c) use Potentially Viral Software in the development of any derivative work of any Licensed Product or Software Documentation. “Potentially Viral Software” means software which is licensed pursuant to terms that directly or indirectly (i) create, or purport to create, obligations for Microsoft or our suppliers with respect to the Licensed Products; or (ii) grant, or purport to grant, to any third party any rights or immunities under Microsoft’s or our suppliers’ intellectual property or proprietary rights in the Licensed Products. Potentially Viral Software includes, without limitation, any software that requires as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of such software that other software incorporated into, derived from, or distributed with such software be: (a) disclosed or distributed in source code form; (b) licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (c) redistributable at no charge. I'm not a lawyer, but this term sounds scarier than I think it is. "Potentially Viral Software" is defined to be software under a license that places obligations on Microsoft (which would be every license offered by Microsoft, and no license not offered by Microsoft, so as its only effect is to prevent you from using Microsoft software, it seems an unintelligible term). It goes on to say this "includes... software that requires... [being] distributed in source code form" but that has nothing to do with "Potentially Viral Software" as defined just before. My gut says Microsoft wrote this term in a manner calculated to confuse drive-by software engineers into believing that VS can't be used to compile GPLed software, that the GPL creates obligations on third parties, or both.
- cm3 10y ago
  Thanks for digging that up. It reads vaguely familiar. The point of a EULA is for the End User to sign it. If the end user cannot understand it, does this mean they have to ask a lawyer before clicking Next in the installer?

by cm3 10y ago

AlexeyBrin 10y ago

I never heard of such a thing as VS prohibiting the compilation of GPL code.

cm3 10y ago
It didn't say GPL. There was a long section describing code of certain kind, which was a long-winded description for the rules of copyleft, and then a reference to that type (call it X) which may not be fed into MSVC. Like I said this was the EULA for Visual Studio .Net (the first version) and probably more than a decade ago. And as I said also, I don't have the newer EULAs so cannot look for the same section in those. I wish I had saved a copy back then but I wasn't as professional, sorry.
- AlexeyBrin 10y ago
  > So in essence Visual Studio .Net forbade one from building things like GPL software. I'm sure the Visual Studio .Net EULA is available somewhere to dig this up. Maybe I miss something, but you literally said that they didn't allow one to build GPL software.
  - cm3 10y ago
    I wrote "things like GPL" and said it described the copyleft licensing without naming the prominent license. But I cannot find a version of the first (2001 or 2002) EULA, so it's possible my memory isn't exact. Edit: All I could find https://yro.slashdot.org/story/02/08/04/132221/more-ms-eula-fun https://yro.slashdot.org/story/02/08/04/132221/more-ms-eula-...
    - cm3 10y ago
      Anyway, given the Microsoft of today, it's doubtful they would try something like that, so this isn't relevant anymore, but it demonstrates that EULAs are written in the language of laws and unrealistic for users to read and grasp correctly. MIT and ISC licenses are simple to understand, whereas GPL and Apache are long and some sections are hard to follow without a law degree. Same issue with EULAs.
  - tobltobs 10y ago
    You missed the word 'like'. As he is no lawyer he avoided to give a concrete example, but he tried to describe the lawyer speak with a more understandable example. What is your interpretation of the EULA text?

justinclift 10y ago

Would this be the thing you're referring to? https://wiki.wireshark.org/Development/MSVC7 About a paragraph down that page, it mentions the concept of Visual Studio 2003 not being allowed to compiled GPL code, stating that's a misconception. The original EULA doesn't seem to be online any more though, so it's hard to tell.

cm3 10y ago
I don't know because I can't find the EULA I saw in the installer dialog on Windows myself, so it's pointless for me to speculate, but it's funny because it's the first and last time I read a EULA, while I was waiting for the installer to finish. Since it's written in legal language, and I was much younger and inexperienced/uneducated, I might have fallen for the same incorrect interpretation. Seeing how wireshark has a separate section and I was able to find a Slashdot post, it seems I wasn't the only one who found something curious.

drewcrawford 10y ago

My Google-fu produced the following Microsoft ISVLA from 2009 (not VS-related, but this language appears in several of their EULAs from the 2000s): http://www.microsoftvolumelicensing.com/userights/Downloader.aspx?DocumentId=2322&usg=AFQjCNG2sa-QyMP5OMqVAnYfBshhEh4FFg&sig2=K2lXPncsOELGGf8tiLiwMQ http://www.microsoftvolumelicensing.com/userights/Downloader... > Potentially Viral Software. Your license rights under Agreement and/or Academic Agreement are conditioned upon your compliance with the following terms: You must not: (a) Integrate or otherwise incorporate Potentially Viral Software into, or combine Potentially Viral Software with, any Licensed Product, Software Documentation, or derivative work thereof; (b) distribute Potentially Viral Software in conjunction with any Licensed Product, Software Documentation, or derivative work thereof; or (c) use Potentially Viral Software in the development of any derivative work of any Licensed Product or Software Documentation. “Potentially Viral Software” means software which is licensed pursuant to terms that directly or indirectly (i) create, or purport to create, obligations for Microsoft or our suppliers with respect to the Licensed Products; or (ii) grant, or purport to grant, to any third party any rights or immunities under Microsoft’s or our suppliers’ intellectual property or proprietary rights in the Licensed Products. Potentially Viral Software includes, without limitation, any software that requires as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of such software that other software incorporated into, derived from, or distributed with such software be: (a) disclosed or distributed in source code form; (b) licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (c) redistributable at no charge. I'm not a lawyer, but this term sounds scarier than I think it is. "Potentially Viral Software" is defined to be software under a license that places obligations on Microsoft (which would be every license offered by Microsoft, and no license not offered by Microsoft, so as its only effect is to prevent you from using Microsoft software, it seems an unintelligible term). It goes on to say this "includes... software that requires... [being] distributed in source code form" but that has nothing to do with "Potentially Viral Software" as defined just before. My gut says Microsoft wrote this term in a manner calculated to confuse drive-by software engineers into believing that VS can't be used to compile GPLed software, that the GPL creates obligations on third parties, or both.

cm3 10y ago
Thanks for digging that up. It reads vaguely familiar. The point of a EULA is for the End User to sign it. If the end user cannot understand it, does this mean they have to ask a lawyer before clicking Next in the installer?