Subject: Re: Fwd: study of GNU GPL vs MS EULA
From: Con Zymaris <>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 13:04:30 +1000

On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 02:08:54AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Con Zymaris (
> > While I agree with the basic tenets of Rick's argument, I would ask in 
> > return: if not a comparison of the GPL to the EULA, then what? I see these 
> > two licences as perhaps the primary exemplars of the FOSS and proprietary 
> > worlds, and as such, are perhaps the only readily available agreements we 
> > can contrast in this manner.
> I probably forgot to properly stress that I appreciated your commentary,
> despite my picking of nits.  My point, though, was that the two licences 

Thanks Rick. I did appreciate the general vibe of your communications, so 
not a worry.

> compared tend not, in the pragmatic real world, to be alternative
> choices:  Nobody says "Hmm, I wonder if I should issue this code of mine
> under the XP EULA."  So, likely your point is some very broad one about
> the two licensing philosophies, which you might want to make more
> explicit.
> You might want to mention that the GPL preamble, which you analyse at
> some length, likely has no substantive effect.

This vagueness of course extends further, as to the legality of the
clickthrough licencing in general. This was something which was supposed
to be addressed by UCC article 2B (which became UCITA.)

I fear that beyond a certain point, I'm not the best person to provide
that level of commentary. 

I saw my role in bringing this specific topic to the discussion table,
particularly of CIOs, MIS managers and organisational IT policy heads, and
ensuring they knew there are different licences out there, and that many
of the truths they hold sacred, such as being able to hold vendors
accountable and seek legal relief, are quite hollow.


Con Zymaris
Con Zymaris <> Level 4, 10 Queen St, Melbourne 03 9621 2377 
Cybersource: Unix/Linux, TCP/IP and Web App. Development

license-discuss archive is at