Interesting Microsoft license clause re open source

[Forrest J Cavalier III]

As far as I understand English, this means absolutely nothing.

Part by part...

> 
> (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. 

That sounds bad, but....

> 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. 

At worst, what it says is that you can't distribute Microsoft's
software under any license which lets the receiver make copies.

In other words, "You may not make derivative works under an
open source license."

Since (ii) seems to have most people concerned, let's look
at the question: Can I use GCC (the GNU GPL'ed compiler) 
to compile software under this Microsoft license?

Answer: Sure you can.

Clause (ii) prohibits using "Potentially viral software" and then
defines "Potentially viral software" with clause (x) and (y).
We just have to examine those clauses....

Is clause (x) triggered by using gcc?  No. (First of all, running a GNU
tool NEVER creates obligations.  That's what freedom means.
The GPL creates obligations when you distribute the GPL'ed
software.)  Someone who isn't Microsoft using gcc does not create
any obligations for Microsoft.  In reality, I can't imagine clause 
(x) is ever triggered.  Think about it, someone downstream in a
distribution path cannot do something to obligate earlier 
distributors to something.  The GPL does not do this.  A contract
between two parties cannot obligate a third party to terms.

So, is clause (y) triggered by using gcc?  No. Using gcc does not change
the underlying obligations or redistribution rights.  If you
take Microsoft's proprietary code and run it through gcc,
it still remains proprietary code (subject to Microsoft's EULA.)

The GPL does not meet their definition of "Potentially
viral software."

Running through the other open source licenses is an exercise
for the reader.

Again, creating derivative works is a different story.

Forrest J. Cavalier III, Mib Software  Voice 570-992-8824 
http://www.rocketaware.com/ has over 30,000 links to  
source, libraries, functions, applications, and documentation.