Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add MS EULA to the list of third-party licenses in the Windows installer #47867

Closed
malemburg opened this issue Aug 20, 2008 · 24 comments
Closed

Comments

@malemburg
Copy link
Member

BPO 3617
Nosy @malemburg, @loewis, @mhammond, @warsaw, @theller, @VanL
Files
  • msvs2008_prof_edition_eula.txt: Visual Studio 2008 Profession Edition EULA.txt
  • eula.txt: VS7.1 Professional EULA
  • msi-msvs-eula.patch
  • Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.

    Show more details

    GitHub fields:

    assignee = None
    closed_at = <Date 2008-09-14.20:31:05.730>
    created_at = <Date 2008-08-20.09:47:44.210>
    labels = ['OS-windows', 'release-blocker']
    title = 'Add MS EULA to the list of third-party licenses in the\tWindows installer'
    updated_at = <Date 2008-09-14.20:31:05.711>
    user = 'https://github.com/malemburg'

    bugs.python.org fields:

    activity = <Date 2008-09-14.20:31:05.711>
    actor = 'loewis'
    assignee = 'none'
    closed = True
    closed_date = <Date 2008-09-14.20:31:05.730>
    closer = 'loewis'
    components = ['Windows']
    creation = <Date 2008-08-20.09:47:44.210>
    creator = 'lemburg'
    dependencies = []
    files = ['11187', '11188', '11449']
    hgrepos = []
    issue_num = 3617
    keywords = ['patch']
    message_count = 24.0
    messages = ['71527', '71528', '71605', '71613', '71618', '71620', '71621', '71622', '72334', '72464', '72875', '72882', '72911', '72922', '72927', '72930', '72931', '73128', '73140', '73145', '73195', '73197', '73198', '73235']
    nosy_count = 8.0
    nosy_names = ['lemburg', 'loewis', 'mhammond', 'barry', 'theller', 'nyamatongwe', 'tvaught', 'vanl']
    pr_nums = []
    priority = 'release blocker'
    resolution = 'fixed'
    stage = None
    status = 'closed'
    superseder = None
    type = None
    url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue3617'
    versions = ['Python 2.6', 'Python 2.5', 'Python 3.0']

    @malemburg
    Copy link
    Member Author

    Since we are shipping the msvcr90.dll (+ assemblies) together with the
    Python installer for Windows, we need to include the MS EULA for VS2008
    in the third-party licenses section as this is the license that covers
    the VS DLLs.

    @malemburg
    Copy link
    Member Author

    Note that there are a few gotchas in the MS EULA, such as disallowing to
    ship the DLLs with GPLed Python products or requiring that the PSF
    prevents further redistribution of the DLLs unless used in conjunction
    with Python.

    @mhammond
    Copy link
    Contributor

    Obviously IANAL, but my reading of eula.txt included with VS9 seems less
    restrictive than the 2003 one. It has 2 clauses that seem relevant:

    • [you must] require distributors and external end users to agree to
      terms that protect it at least as much as this agreement;

    • [you must not] modify or distribute the source code of any
      Distributable Code so that any part of it becomes subject to an Excluded
      License. An Excluded License is [description of GPL]

    I do see how the first could be considered an issue (otoh, I'd try to
    argue we aren't doing anything to imply any worse terms :), but I don't
    see how the second is, even for GPLd programs that simply used the compiler.

    Maybe it would be helpful if you referenced the specific clauses you
    think are of concern?

    @malemburg
    Copy link
    Member Author

    Mark Hammond wrote:

    Mark Hammond <mhammond@users.sourceforge.net> added the comment:

    Obviously IANAL, but my reading of eula.txt included with VS9 seems less
    restrictive than the 2003 one. It has 2 clauses that seem relevant:

    • [you must] require distributors and external end users to agree to
      terms that protect it at least as much as this agreement;

    • [you must not] modify or distribute the source code of any
      Distributable Code so that any part of it becomes subject to an Excluded
      License. An Excluded License is [description of GPL]

    I do see how the first could be considered an issue (otoh, I'd try to
    argue we aren't doing anything to imply any worse terms :), but I don't
    see how the second is, even for GPLd programs that simply used the compiler.

    Maybe it would be helpful if you referenced the specific clauses you
    think are of concern?

    This was already discussed on the PSF members mailing list.

    I don't have the VC9 EULA available, but these are the clauses of concern
    from VC7.1:

    """
    3. DISTRIBUTION REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER LICENSE RIGHTS AND LIMITATIONS. If you choose to exercise
    your rights under Section 2, any redistribution by you is subject to your compliance with Section
    3.1; some of the Redistributable Code has additional limited use rights described in Section 3.2.

       3.1	General Distribution Requirements.
    
             (a)	If you choose to redistribute Sample Code, or Redistributable Code (collectively,
    

    the “Redistributables”) as described in Section 2, you agree:

                  (i) except as otherwise noted in Section 2.1 (Sample Code), to distribute the
    

    Redistributables only in object code form and in conjunction with and as a part of a software
    application product developed by you that adds significant and primary functionality to the
    Redistributables (“Licensee Software”);

                  (ii) that the Redistributables only operate in conjunction with Microsoft Windows
    

    platforms;

                  (iii) that if the Licensee Software is distributed beyond Licensee’s premises or
    

    externally from Licensee’s organization, to distribute the Licensee Software containing the
    Redistributables pursuant to an end user license agreement (which may be “break-the-seal”,
    “click-wrap” or signed), with terms no less protective than those contained in this EULA;

                  (iv) not to use Microsoft’s name, logo, or trademarks to market the Licensee
    

    Software;

                  (v) to display your own valid copyright notice which shall be sufficient to
    

    protect Microsoft’s copyright in the Software;

                  (vi) not to remove or obscure any copyright, trademark or patent notices that
    

    appear on the Software as delivered to you;

                  (vii) to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Microsoft from and against any
    

    claims or lawsuits, including attorney’s fees, that arise or result from the use or distribution of
    the Licensee Software;

                  (viii) to otherwise comply with the terms of this EULA; and (ix) agree that
    

    Microsoft reserves all rights not expressly granted.

             You also agree not to permit further distribution of the Redistributables by your end
    

    users except you may permit further redistribution of the Redistributables by your distributors to
    your end-user customers if your distributors only distribute the Redistributables in conjunction
    with, and as part of, the Licensee Software, you comply with all other terms of this EULA, and your
    distributors comply with all restrictions of this EULA that are applicable to you.

             (b)	If you use the Redistributables, then in addition to your compliance with the
    

    applicable distribution requirements described for the Redistributables, the following also applies.
    Your license rights to the Redistributables are conditioned upon your not

                  (i) creating derivative works of the Redistributables in any manner that would
    

    cause the Redistributables in whole or in part to become subject to any of the terms of an Excluded
    License; or

                  (ii) distributing the Redistributables (or derivative works thereof) in any manner
    

    that would cause the Redistributables to become subject to any of the terms of an Excluded License.
    An “Excluded License” is any license that requires as a condition of use, modification and/or
    distribution of software subject to the Excluded License, that such software or other software
    combined and/or distributed with such software be (x) disclosed or distributed in source code form;
    (y) licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (z) redistributable at no charge.
    """

    Specifically:
    -------------

    3.1 (a) (iii) ... pursuant to an end user license agreement (which may be “break-the-seal”,
    “click-wrap” or signed), with terms no less protective than those contained in this EULA ...

    The PSF license is *less* protective than the MS EULA.

    3.1 (a) ... You also agree not to permit further distribution of the Redistributables ...

    This clause also allows an exception to the rule, but that's mainly meant to cover distributors of
    the software as a whole.

    3.1 (b) ... [may not be distributed together with an app under a GPL-like license] ...

    This is only important for people wanting to use e.g. py2exe for creating a GPLed application.

    Note that I'm not suggesting to dive into all this. We should simply put the EULA into the installer
    package and be done with it :-)

    @malemburg malemburg changed the title Add MS EULA to the list of third-party licenses in the Windows installer Add MS EULA to the list of third-party licenses in the Windows installer Aug 21, 2008
    @mhammond
    Copy link
    Contributor

    MAL:

    This was already discussed on the PSF members mailing list.

    Yeah, but not specifically about VS2008 which this bug seemed to be
    specifically targetting. FWIW, this appears like *less* of a problem
    for 2.6 than for 2.4 and 2.5 as it doesn't appear to have as draconian
    clauses as the ones you quote.

    Note that I'm not suggesting to dive into all this. We
    should simply put the EULA into the installer package
    and be done with it :-)

    I can't argue with that - including the relevant EULA certainly would be
    prudent (I wonder what the license on the EULA itself is - it doesn't
    seem to be covered as 'Distributable Code' under the terms of its own
    license ;) What the hell though - at the risk of being sued, I've
    attached it ;)

    @malemburg
    Copy link
    Member Author

    Attaching the VS7.1 EULA. This is only relevant for Python 2.5... should
    we do another patch level release.

    @malemburg
    Copy link
    Member Author

    Mark Hammond wrote:

    MAL:
    > Note that I'm not suggesting to dive into all this. We
    > should simply put the EULA into the installer package
    > and be done with it :-)

    I can't argue with that - including the relevant EULA certainly would be
    prudent (I wonder what the license on the EULA itself is - it doesn't
    seem to be covered as 'Distributable Code' under the terms of its own
    license ;) What the hell though - at the risk of being sued, I've
    attached it ;)

    Thanks. I'll have a look at the new EULA as well... I was under the
    assumption that EULAs tend to grow more restrictive rather then
    open up possibilities ;-)

    I've added the VC7.1 EULA as well.

    @malemburg malemburg changed the title Add MS EULA to the list of third-party licenses in the Windows installer Add MS EULA to the list of third-party licenses in the Windows installer Aug 21, 2008
    @malemburg
    Copy link
    Member Author

    Adding the EULA should be easy... the MSI installer code already adds
    the other licenses for OpenSSL, etc. to the license text in
    Tools/msi/msi.py (took me a while to find that file, since I would have
    expected this to live under PCbuild/).

    The only "problem" is finding the path to the EULA text file, since that
    depends on the where VS is installed (and perhaps the edition as well).

    @malemburg
    Copy link
    Member Author

    Raising priority since this needs to be resolved prior to the final
    release of Python 2.6/3.0.

    Regarding finding the eula.txt in the VS2008 installation, there doesn't
    appear to be a generic way. The eula.txt is stored in a folder named
    after the installed version of VS2008. Finding the installation folder
    is easy (use VS90COMNTOOLS env setting), but determining the product
    name doesn't look as easy.

    Perhaps there's some registry trick we could pull off ?!

    @warsaw
    Copy link
    Member

    warsaw commented Sep 4, 2008

    This should definitely block the final release, but not rc1.

    @loewis
    Copy link
    Mannequin

    loewis mannequin commented Sep 9, 2008

    I don't think this needs to be resolved before 2.6, not without a
    pronouncement from a lawyer advising the PSF. Layman's analyses of legal
    issues are void.

    Thus lowering the priority.

    @loewis loewis mannequin removed the release-blocker label Sep 9, 2008
    @malemburg
    Copy link
    Member Author

    On 2008-09-09 17:54, Martin v. Löwis wrote:

    Martin v. Löwis <martin@v.loewis.de> added the comment:

    I don't think this needs to be resolved before 2.6, not without a
    pronouncement from a lawyer advising the PSF. Layman's analyses of legal
    issues are void.

    Thus lowering the priority.

    That's an interesting argument :-) What makes you think that a
    layman's judgment over a layman's analysis is not void as well ?

    Rather than arguing about the necessity of including the license
    of a 3rd party file that we intend to include in a wide-spread
    software release, wouldn't it be easier to just add the file
    and be done with it, like I suggested at the very beginning of
    this discussion ?

    @malemburg malemburg changed the title Add MS EULA to the list of third-party licenses in the Windows installer Add MS EULA to the list of third-party licenses in the Windows installer Sep 9, 2008
    @loewis
    Copy link
    Mannequin

    loewis mannequin commented Sep 9, 2008

    Rather than arguing about the necessity of including the license
    of a 3rd party file that we intend to include in a wide-spread
    software release, wouldn't it be easier to just add the file
    and be done with it, like I suggested at the very beginning of
    this discussion ?

    It's certainly easier to defer the decision than to take action,
    especially when we don't *need* to take action (Python works fine
    whether or not the file is included). There are so many more important
    things to do.

    OTOH, contributions are welcome.

    @loewis loewis mannequin changed the title Add MS EULA to the list of third-party licenses in the Windows installer Add MS EULA to the list of third-party licenses in the Windows installer Sep 9, 2008
    @malemburg
    Copy link
    Member Author

    On 2008-09-09 23:09, Martin v. Löwis wrote:

    Martin v. Löwis <martin@v.loewis.de> added the comment:

    > Rather than arguing about the necessity of including the license
    > of a 3rd party file that we intend to include in a wide-spread
    > software release, wouldn't it be easier to just add the file
    > and be done with it, like I suggested at the very beginning of
    > this discussion ?

    It's certainly easier to defer the decision than to take action,
    especially when we don't *need* to take action (Python works fine
    whether or not the file is included).

    We've had the same issue with the OpenSSL license and the other
    3rd party packages which come with the Python Windows installer.

    Do you really think that simply ignoring the fact that we are
    violating copyrights "because Python works without them" is the
    right way to move forward, esp. considering that the PSF itself
    is all about protecting copyrights ?

    There are so many more important things to do.

    True.

    OTOH, contributions are welcome.

    I'd love to, but haven't found a way to determine the path to the
    eula.txt file in a reliable way.

    @loewis
    Copy link
    Mannequin

    loewis mannequin commented Sep 9, 2008

    We've had the same issue with the OpenSSL license and the other
    3rd party packages which come with the Python Windows installer.

    No, the issue was completely different. Those licenses literally
    say "include a copy of the license text" (e.g. for OpenSSL
    "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
    notice, this list of conditions [...]")

    That's a requirement that I can understand. For the MS EULA,
    I don't understand what it says, and I don't know whether
    including it will make compliance with the license better or
    worse. I need a lawyer to tell me what to do comply with the
    license, then I can decide whether I like to do that, and the
    lawyer can also tell me what the consequences might be if I
    did something different.

    Do you really think that simply ignoring the fact that we are
    violating copyrights

    I don't believe we are violating copyrights by not including the
    license (and I don't believe you when you say we do). I would
    believe a lawyer telling me so (although according to my experience
    with lawyers, the lawyer may not actually say that, but only tell
    me what to do).

    I'd love to, but haven't found a way to determine the path to the
    eula.txt file in a reliable way.

    So I propose to defer this until a) we have a reliable confirmation
    that it is the right thing to do, and b) there is also a proposal
    for an implementation strategy. Blocking the release for this
    issue is really counter-productive.

    @malemburg
    Copy link
    Member Author

    Here's a patch that adds the MS EULA to the MSI installer.

    I couldn't test this, since I don't have a Python build environment on
    Windows, but it should be more or less working.

    @malemburg
    Copy link
    Member Author

    On 2008-09-10 00:15, Martin v. Löwis wrote:

    Martin v. Löwis <martin@v.loewis.de> added the comment:

    > We've had the same issue with the OpenSSL license and the other
    > 3rd party packages which come with the Python Windows installer.

    No, the issue was completely different. Those licenses literally
    say "include a copy of the license text" (e.g. for OpenSSL
    "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
    notice, this list of conditions [...]")

    That's a requirement that I can understand. For the MS EULA,
    I don't understand what it says, and I don't know whether
    including it will make compliance with the license better or
    worse. I need a lawyer to tell me what to do comply with the
    license, then I can decide whether I like to do that, and the
    lawyer can also tell me what the consequences might be if I
    did something different.

    > Do you really think that simply ignoring the fact that we are
    > violating copyrights

    I don't believe we are violating copyrights by not including the
    license (and I don't believe you when you say we do). I would
    believe a lawyer telling me so (although according to my experience
    with lawyers, the lawyer may not actually say that, but only tell
    me what to do).

    This part sparked the original discussion:

    """
    For any Distributable Code you distribute, you must ...
    require distributors and external end users to agree to terms
    that protect it at least as much as this agreement;
    """

    The PSF license doesn't provide the same level of protection
    as the MS EULA, so the only way to maintain the protection is
    to either add special terms that fulfill this requirement to the
    license covering the DLLs, or to simply include the MS EULA and
    tell the user that the DLLs are covered by that license.

    I proposed to do the latter, since it's the easiest way
    to avoid any issues.

    > I'd love to, but haven't found a way to determine the path to the
    > eula.txt file in a reliable way.

    So I propose to defer this until a) we have a reliable confirmation
    that it is the right thing to do, and b) there is also a proposal
    for an implementation strategy. Blocking the release for this
    issue is really counter-productive.

    It's not ideal, but if all it takes is including the EULA
    (and the PSF lawyer should be able to get back to us on this
    within the time frame of the release schedule), then it's easy to
    resolve.

    @malemburg malemburg changed the title Add MS EULA to the list of third-party licenses in the Windows installer Add MS EULA to the list of third-party licenses in the Windows installer Sep 9, 2008
    @VanL
    Copy link
    Member

    VanL commented Sep 12, 2008

    Sorry for the long comment. There are two parts to this comment. First,
    my recommendation, and second, the somewhat tedious analysis of the
    Microsoft EULAs. The second part is the verbiage to justify the first.

    Recommendation
    ==============

    To comply with Microsoft's EULA, the PSF should include text like the
    following in the Windows binary installer license text:

    ----

    "This program is linked with and uses Microsoft Distributable Code,
    copyrighted by Microsoft Corporation. The Microsoft Distributable Code
    includes the following files:

    [...]

    If you further distribute programs that include the Microsoft
    Distributable Code, you must comply with the restrictions on
    distribution specified by Microsoft. In particular, you must require
    distributors and external end users to agree to terms that protect the
    Microsoft Distributable Code at least as much as Microsoft's own
    requirements for the Distributable Code. See Microsoft's documentation
    (included in its developer tools and on its website at microsoft.com)
    for specific details.

    Redistribution of the Windows binary build of the Python interpreter
    complies with this agreement, provided that you do not:

    • alter any copyright, trademark or patent notice in Microsoft's
      Distributable Code;

    • use Microsoft’s trademarks in your programs’ names or in a way that
      suggests your programs come from or are endorsed by Microsoft;

    • distribute Microsoft's Distributable Code to run on a platform other
      than Microsoft operating systems, run-time technologies or application
      platforms;

    • include Microsoft Distributable Code in malicious, deceptive or
      unlawful programs; or

    • modify or distribute the source code of any Microsoft Distributable
      Code so that any part of it becomes subject to an Excluded License. An
      Excluded License is one that requires, as a condition of use,
      modification or distribution, that the code be disclosed or distributed
      in source code form; or others have the right to modify it.

    These restrictions apply only to the Microsoft Distributable Code as
    defined above, not to Python itself or any programs running on the
    Python interpreter. The redistribution of the Python interpreter and
    libraries is governed by the Python Software License included with this
    file, or by other licenses as marked.

    ----

    Commentary on the distribution requirements
    ===========================================

    VS 2008 (labels added for clarity)
    ----------------------------------

    "ii. Distribution Requirements. For any Distributable Code you
    distribute, you must

    (A) add significant primary functionality to it in your programs;"

    This term is satisfied by the addition of the Python interpreter.

    (B) "for any Distributable Code having a filename extension of .lib,
    distribute only the results of running such Distributable Code through a
    linker with your program;"

    This prohibits distributing libraries in .lib form. Based on what I see
    in the MSI, we do not do this. We do include _msi.lib, but that is not
    Microsoft's _msi.lib, but the ready-for linking version of MvL's msilib.

    (C) "distribute Distributable Code included in a setup program only as
    part of that setup program without modification;"

    Python does not include any Distributable Code included in a setup program.

    (D) "require distributors and external end users to agree to terms that
    protect it at least as much as this agreement;"

    This term specifies that any Distributable Code that we distribute must
    itself have some sort of agreement that protects Microsoft's rights in
    "it" (the code) "at least as much as this agreement."

    The important term here is "it." The antecedent here is "Distributable
    Code you distribute," (Microsoft's code, in this case the msvcrt.dll),
    not "your programs" (Python).

    (E) "display your valid copyright notice on your programs; and"

    Python complies with this requirement, as we display our own license
    agreement and include sys.copyright.

    (F) "indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Microsoft from any claims,
    including attorneys’ fees, related to the distribution or use of your
    programs."

    Under this provision, we agree not to sue Microsoft for distributing Python.

    "iii. Distribution Restrictions. You may not

    (G) alter any copyright, trademark or patent notice in the Distributable
    Code;"

    Python complies with this requirement, as the Microsoft Distributable
    Code is distributed unaltered.

    (H) "use Microsoft’s trademarks in your programs’ names or in a way that
    suggests your programs come from or are endorsed by Microsoft;"

    Python complies with this requirement, as we do use Microsoft's
    trademarks in the program name and we don't suggest that Python comes
    from or is endorsed by Microsoft.

    (I) "distribute Distributable Code to run on a platform other than
    Microsoft operating systems, run-time technologies or application
    platforms;"

    While Python could technically run on non-Microsoft platforms (e.g.
    Wine), the Windows binary distribution is explicitly provided *for
    Windows.* Other platforms are provided source code or explicit binaries.
    Therefore, the PSF does not "distribute Distributable Code to run on a
    platform other than Microsoft operating systems."

    (J) "include Distributable Code in malicious, deceptive or unlawful
    programs; or"

    Python complies with this requirement, as it is not malicious,
    deceptive, or unlawful.

    (K) "modify or distribute the source code of any Distributable Code so
    that any part of it becomes subject to an Excluded License. An Excluded
    License is one that requires, as a condition of use, modification or
    distribution, that

    the code be disclosed or distributed in source code form; or
    
    others have the right to modify it."
    

    Python complies with this requirement, as it does not express any claim
    or licensing requirement on any part of the code that goes into a binary
    distribution.

    -----

    (VS 7.1 EULA)
    -------------

    The analysis for the VS 7.1 EULA is similar to the 2008 EULA above.

    "3.1 General Distribution Requirements.

    (a) If you choose to redistribute Sample Code, or Redistributable
    Code (collectively, the “Redistributables”) as described in Section 2,
    you agree:"

    The PSF redistributes "Redistributables", so this section applies to us.

    "(i) except as otherwise noted in Section 2.1 (Sample Code), to
    distribute the Redistributables only in object code form and in
    conjunction with and as a part of a software application product
    developed by you that adds significant and primary functionality to the
    Redistributables (“Licensee Software”);"

    This is similar to requirement (A) above in the 2008 EULA. The Python
    interpreter fulfills this requirement.

    "(ii) that the Redistributables only operate in conjunction with
    Microsoft Windows platforms;"

    As discussed above relative to paragraph (I) above, and end user could
    conceivably take the Windows binary distribution of Python and run it on
    Wine. Regardless, the Windows binary build is clearly marked for use on
    the Microsoft Windows platform and other platforms have their own
    builds. Accordingly, Python fulfills this requirement.

    "(iii) that if the Licensee Software is distributed beyond Licensee’s
    premises or externally from Licensee’s organization, to distribute the
    Licensee Software containing the Redistributables pursuant to an end
    user license agreement (which may be “break-the-seal”, “click-wrap” or
    signed), with terms no less protective than those contained in this EULA;"

    The wording in the VS 7.1 EULA is not as clear as in the 2008 EULA, but
    these license terms only apply to the Microsoft Redistributables, not to
    Python itself. The PSF will comply with this provision by incorporating
    Microsoft's terms by reference and explicitly applying them to the
    Microsoft Redistributables only.

    "(iv) not to use Microsoft’s name, logo, or trademarks to market the
    Licensee Software;"

    As discussed relative to paragraph (H) above, Python complies with this
    provision.

    "(v) to display your own valid copyright notice which shall be
    sufficient to protect Microsoft’s copyright in the Software;"

    As discussed relative to paragraph (E) above, Python complies with this
    provision.

    "(vi) not to remove or obscure any copyright, trademark or patent
    notices that appear on the Software as delivered to you;"

    As discussed relative to paragraph (G) above, Python complies with this
    provision.

    "(vii) to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Microsoft from and
    against any claims or lawsuits, including attorney’s fees, that arise or
    result from the use or distribution of the Licensee Software;"

    As discussed relative to paragraph (F) above, Python complies with this
    provision.

    "(viii) to otherwise comply with the terms of this EULA;"

    The PSF and the Python Windows binary distribution otherwise comply with
    the EULA.

    "and (ix) agree that Microsoft reserves all rights not expressly granted."

    The PSF can agree to this provision, again as it refers only to the
    Microsoft Distributable Code, not Python itself.

    "You also agree not to permit further distribution of the
    Redistributables by your end users except you may permit further
    redistribution of the Redistributables by your distributors to your
    end-user customers if your distributors only distribute the
    Redistributables in conjunction with, and as part of, the Licensee
    Software, you comply with all other terms of this EULA, and your
    distributors comply with all restrictions of this EULA that are
    applicable to you."

    This provision has two parts. First, the PSF agrees to only allow the
    redistribution of the Microsoft Distributable Code with the Python
    interpreter, and second, redistributions of the Microsoft Distributable
    Code need to comply with the EULA.

    The provided statement complies with both of these provisions by making
    the restrictions on the Microsoft Distributable Code clear and by
    incorporating Microsoft's restrictions by reference.

    "If you use the Redistributables, then in addition to your compliance
    with the applicable distribution requirements described for the
    Redistributables, the following also applies. Your license rights to
    the Redistributables are conditioned upon your not (i) creating
    derivative works of the Redistributables in any manner that would cause
    the Redistributables in whole or in part to become subject to any of the
    terms of an Excluded License; or (ii) distributing the Redistributables
    (or derivative works thereof) in any manner that would cause the
    Redistributables to become subject to any of the terms of an Excluded
    License. An “Excluded License” is any license that requires as a
    condition of use, modification and/or distribution of software subject
    to the Excluded License, that such software or other software combined
    and/or distributed with such software be (x) disclosed or distributed in
    source code form; (y) licensed for the purpose of making derivative
    works; or (z) redistributable at no charge."

    As discussed relative to paragraph (K) above, Python complies with this
    provision, as it does not express any claim or licensing requirement on
    any part of the code that goes into a binary distribution.

    @malemburg
    Copy link
    Member Author

    Thank you, Van, for this comprehensive analysis.

    By including your text we'll also bypass the issues with finding the
    EULA file in the Visual Studio installation.

    The text should be easy to add as extra file and we can then reference
    this file in the MSI installer builder (much like we do for all other
    3rd party licenses. I can't help with that in the next few days, though,
    since I'm on vacation the next week.

    One nit I found with the text, but that may not be legally relevant: The
    MS website does not appear to list the EULA texts anywhere.

    @VanL
    Copy link
    Member

    VanL commented Sep 12, 2008

    The important part is that we point out the Microsoft redistributables
    are subject to Microsoft's restrictions; we don't need to point to a
    specific EULA URL. People installing Python will agree to the license
    terms as they apply to the different pieces of the binary, and thus
    satisfy the PSF's obligation.

    @loewis
    Copy link
    Mannequin

    loewis mannequin commented Sep 13, 2008

    Van, your recommendation is much appreciated. I'll add your text to the
    LICENSE file of the next release candidates.

    @nyamatongwe
    Copy link
    Mannequin

    nyamatongwe mannequin commented Sep 13, 2008

    The recommended addition includes the 'excluded license' section which
    appears unnecessary as Python does not distribute any source code
    redistributables, only the .DLL file which is a binary executable.
    Including this is likely to confuse those who wish to use the GPL when
    distributing projects which include Python since the license is trying
    to limit their redistributing something they will not be able to find
    and so remove from Python.

    @VanL
    Copy link
    Member

    VanL commented Sep 13, 2008

    Neil, you are right. I was thinking about linking to the binary dll
    (which some people think might impose licensing restrictions under some
    circumstances), but the text does refer to the source code.

    As Python does not distribute any source code from Microsoft, it is
    better to remove the last restriction identified by Neil from the
    recommended text (and fix the grammar accordingly).

    @loewis
    Copy link
    Mannequin

    loewis mannequin commented Sep 14, 2008

    This is now fixed in r66460 and r66462; the text that gets included is
    in Tools/msi/crtlicense.txt.

    @loewis loewis mannequin removed the easy label Sep 14, 2008
    @loewis loewis mannequin closed this as completed Sep 14, 2008
    @ezio-melotti ezio-melotti transferred this issue from another repository Apr 10, 2022
    Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
    Projects
    None yet
    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    4 participants