DRM makes children cry

[rolanaj]

EULA's are the pits ... EULAlyzer (http://www.javacoolsoftware.com) helps with that some of that with EULA's ... but you still have to pay attention no matter what.

Is there a linux version of this or something similar? I dont generally do windows. fixed quote...... ross549 Edited June 13, 2006 by ross549

[epp_b]

Is there a linux version of this or something similar?

Now why would you need such a thing for Linux

[b2cm]

GNU GPLhttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.htmlAlso note:

We don't take the position that artistic or entertainment works must be free, but if you want to make one free, we recommend the Free Art License.

What can you say to that, epp?

[Neil P]

I found a comparison of the WinXP EULA and the GPL here: http://members.iinet.net.au/~cybersrc/abou...gpl_to_eula.pdfIf nothing else, it goes into some detail on specific parts of the XP EULA and attempts to explain or interpret them. I don't see how some parts could hold up in court, particularly the "Consent to Use of Data" section. Microsoft states they can collect data AND disclose it to others--without being required to tell you what kind of data or even with whom they are sharing it. "but not in a form that personally identifies you" Oh, so we just get Microsoft's word that we won't be personally identified by the data. Oops.Also, I like the part where it says you HAVE to let Microsoft automatically update your computer if they feel like it, but also are provided no warranty after 90 days, including any problems caused by an update. So, Microsoft could publish an update that intentionally breaks every install of Windows XP, and only people who have purchased it 90 days before the update could do anything about it (and even then, probably not much could be done about it more than a refund).Also, just because a contract has been agreed to does not mean it can't be thrown out.

[epp_b]

What can you say to that, epp?

I was just joking around

[Guest LilBambi]

GNU GPLhttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.htmlAlso note:What can you say to that, epp?

Free doesn't mean free as in FREE BEER! -- it means free as in FREE SPEECH!The difference is profound. You can charge for your software - there is NO restriction on that. See below:

What Is Copyleft?Copyleft is a general method for making a program free software and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free software as well.The simplest way to make a program free is to put it in the public domain (18k characters), uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program and their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software (18k characters). They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away.In the GNU project, our aim is to give all users the freedom to redistribute and change GNU software. If middlemen could strip off the freedom, we might have many users, but those users would not have freedom. So instead of putting GNU software in the public domain, we ``copyleft'' it. Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has freedom.Copyleft also provides an incentive for other programmers to add to free software. Important free programs such as the GNU C++ compiler exist only because of this.Copyleft also helps programmers who want to contribute improvements to free software get permission to do that. These programmers often work for companies or universities that would do almost anything to get more money. A programmer may want to contribute her changes to the community, but her employer may want to turn the changes into a proprietary software product.When we explain to the employer that it is illegal to distribute the improved version except as free software, the employer usually decides to release it as free software rather than throw it away.To copyleft a program, we first state that it is copyrighted; then we add distribution terms, which are a legal instrument that gives everyone the rights to use, modify, and redistribute the program's code or any program derived from it but only if the distribution terms are unchanged. Thus, the code and the freedoms become legally inseparable.Proprietary software developers use copyright to take away the users' freedom; we use copyright to guarantee their freedom. That's why we reverse the name, changing ``copyright'' into ``copyleft.''Copyleft is a general concept; there are many ways to fill in the details. In the GNU Project, the specific distribution terms that we use are contained in the GNU General Public License, the GNU Lesser General Public License and the GNU Free Documentation License.The appropriate license is included in many manuals and in each GNU source code distribution.The GNU GPL is designed so that you can easily apply it to your own program if you are the copyright holder. You don't have to modify the GNU GPL to do this, just add notices to your program which refer properly to the GNU GPL. Please note that you must use the entire text of the GPL, if you use it. It is an integral whole, and partial copies are not permitted. (Likewise for the LGPL and the FDL.)Using the same distribution terms for many different programs makes it easy to copy code between various different programs. Since they all have the same distribution terms, there is no need to think about whether the terms are compatible. The Lesser GPL includes a provision that lets you alter the distribution terms to the ordinary GPL, so that you can copy code into another program covered by the GPL.

It's the difference between open source and proprietary code! One allows freely being able to do what you want with the code; add to, modify, whatever your application of that software would need. That's the kinda of FREE they are talking about in CopyLeft. Not like in not paying for it. Hence the statement, free as in free speech, not free as in free beer. Edited June 13, 2006 by LilBambi

[b2cm]

Free doesn't mean free as in FREE BEER! -- it means free as in FREE SPEECH!

That's not the point. Artistic or entertainment works are 'speech' more than software. In the face of DRM, artistic or entertainment works as free speech should be advocated as strongly as software is free speech.