Questions about EULA with Excluded Licenses clause

[Dean Brettle]

On Thu, 2005-06-23 at 18:02 +0000, Matthew Seth Flaschen wrote:
> (please excuse possible duplicate message)
> > Does that clause prohibit creating a program which links to both EAB
> and 
> > LGPLed libs? It seems to me that it can be read that way if the 
> > (dynamically) linked program is considered a derivative work of
> EAB, 
> > because the derivative work would then be covered, in part, by an 
> > Excluded License (the LGPL). Is that right? 
>  
> First of all, the whole point of LGPL is that derivative works that
> only link to it, but are not modifications, do not need to be licensed
> under the LGPL.

I understand that.  I don't think the combination would violate the
LGPL.  I think it might violate the EULA because the LGPL requires that
the source for the LGPLed library be included and licensed under the
LGPL when distributing a "derivative work that uses the library".  If
the LGPLed library is considered a "part of" the derivative work for the
purposes of the EULA, I'm concerned that MS could successfully argue
that having it covered by the LGPL is a violation.  Is that a valid
concern or am I being too paranoid? :-)


>   Secondly, you do not have the right to distribute derivative works
> of a copyrighted work without explicit permission.  Even without this
> clause, you wouldn't have explicit permission to distribute under the
> "Excluded Licenses".  Therefore, doing so would be a copyright
> infringement.

I think the idea would be to distribute the derivative work under a non-
Excluded License.  The EULA seems to give explicit permission to do that
when it says, "You may redistribute the Solution and any modifications
you make to it, in whole or in part, on a stand alone basis or as part
of your own products or services."  Am I missing something?

> 
> > As a separate question, is the EULA an Open Source license? 
<snip>
> If you are asking whether it could qualify, the answer is also no.
> For a start, there is the "Performance Tests" clause
<snip>
> That precludes publicly benchmark testing the software.  That's a
> restriction on field of endevaour(#6).

Thanks.  Not sure how I missed that...

<snip>
> Does the software actually provide complete source code?  If not, it
> fails #2.

Good question. :-)  I don't know the answer.

Thanks for the response,

--Dean