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
Comments
Since we are shipping the msvcr90.dll (+ assemblies) together with the |
Note that there are a few gotchas in the MS EULA, such as disallowing to |
Obviously IANAL, but my reading of eula.txt included with VS9 seems less
I do see how the first could be considered an issue (otoh, I'd try to Maybe it would be helpful if you referenced the specific clauses you |
Mark Hammond wrote:
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 """
the “Redistributables”) as described in Section 2, you agree:
Redistributables only in object code form and in conjunction with and as a part of a software
platforms;
externally from Licensee’s organization, to distribute the Licensee Software containing the
Software;
protect Microsoft’s copyright in the Software;
appear on the Software as delivered to you;
claims or lawsuits, including attorney’s fees, that arise or result from the use or distribution of
Microsoft reserves all rights not expressly granted.
users except you may permit further redistribution of the Redistributables by your distributors to
applicable distribution requirements described for the Redistributables, the following also applies.
cause the Redistributables in whole or in part to become subject to any of the terms of an Excluded
that would cause the Redistributables to become subject to any of the terms of an Excluded License. Specifically: 3.1 (a) (iii) ... pursuant to an end user license agreement (which may be “break-the-seal”, 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 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 |
MAL:
Yeah, but not specifically about VS2008 which this bug seemed to be
I can't argue with that - including the relevant EULA certainly would be |
Attaching the VS7.1 EULA. This is only relevant for Python 2.5... should |
Mark Hammond wrote:
Thanks. I'll have a look at the new EULA as well... I was under the I've added the VC7.1 EULA as well. |
Adding the EULA should be easy... the MSI installer code already adds The only "problem" is finding the path to the EULA text file, since that |
Raising priority since this needs to be resolved prior to the final Regarding finding the eula.txt in the VS2008 installation, there doesn't Perhaps there's some registry trick we could pull off ?! |
This should definitely block the final release, but not rc1. |
I don't think this needs to be resolved before 2.6, not without a Thus lowering the priority. |
On 2008-09-09 17:54, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
That's an interesting argument :-) What makes you think that a Rather than arguing about the necessity of including the license |
It's certainly easier to defer the decision than to take action, OTOH, contributions are welcome. |
On 2008-09-09 23:09, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
We've had the same issue with the OpenSSL license and the other Do you really think that simply ignoring the fact that we are
True.
I'd love to, but haven't found a way to determine the path to the |
No, the issue was completely different. Those licenses literally That's a requirement that I can understand. For the MS EULA,
I don't believe we are violating copyrights by not including the
So I propose to defer this until a) we have a reliable confirmation |
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 |
On 2008-09-10 00:15, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
This part sparked the original discussion: """ The PSF license doesn't provide the same level of protection I proposed to do the latter, since it's the easiest way
It's not ideal, but if all it takes is including the EULA |
Sorry for the long comment. There are two parts to this comment. First, Recommendation To comply with Microsoft's EULA, the PSF should include text like the ---- "This program is linked with and uses Microsoft Distributable Code, [...] If you further distribute programs that include the Microsoft Redistribution of the Windows binary build of the Python interpreter
These restrictions apply only to the Microsoft Distributable Code as ---- Commentary on the distribution requirements VS 2008 (labels added for clarity) "ii. Distribution Requirements. For any Distributable Code you (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, This prohibits distributing libraries in .lib form. Based on what I see (C) "distribute Distributable Code included in a setup program only as Python does not include any Distributable Code included in a setup program. (D) "require distributors and external end users to agree to terms that This term specifies that any Distributable Code that we distribute must The important term here is "it." The antecedent here is "Distributable (E) "display your valid copyright notice on your programs; and" Python complies with this requirement, as we display our own license (F) "indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Microsoft from any claims, 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 Python complies with this requirement, as the Microsoft Distributable (H) "use Microsoft’s trademarks in your programs’ names or in a way that Python complies with this requirement, as we do use Microsoft's (I) "distribute Distributable Code to run on a platform other than While Python could technically run on non-Microsoft platforms (e.g. (J) "include Distributable Code in malicious, deceptive or unlawful Python complies with this requirement, as it is not malicious, (K) "modify or distribute the source code of any Distributable Code so
Python complies with this requirement, as it does not express any claim ----- (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 The PSF redistributes "Redistributables", so this section applies to us. "(i) except as otherwise noted in Section 2.1 (Sample Code), to This is similar to requirement (A) above in the 2008 EULA. The Python "(ii) that the Redistributables only operate in conjunction with As discussed above relative to paragraph (I) above, and end user could "(iii) that if the Licensee Software is distributed beyond Licensee’s The wording in the VS 7.1 EULA is not as clear as in the 2008 EULA, but "(iv) not to use Microsoft’s name, logo, or trademarks to market the As discussed relative to paragraph (H) above, Python complies with this "(v) to display your own valid copyright notice which shall be As discussed relative to paragraph (E) above, Python complies with this "(vi) not to remove or obscure any copyright, trademark or patent As discussed relative to paragraph (G) above, Python complies with this "(vii) to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Microsoft from and As discussed relative to paragraph (F) above, Python complies with this "(viii) to otherwise comply with the terms of this EULA;" The PSF and the Python Windows binary distribution otherwise comply with "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 "You also agree not to permit further distribution of the This provision has two parts. First, the PSF agrees to only allow the The provided statement complies with both of these provisions by making "If you use the Redistributables, then in addition to your compliance As discussed relative to paragraph (K) above, Python complies with this |
Thank you, Van, for this comprehensive analysis. By including your text we'll also bypass the issues with finding the The text should be easy to add as extra file and we can then reference One nit I found with the text, but that may not be legally relevant: The |
The important part is that we point out the Microsoft redistributables |
Van, your recommendation is much appreciated. I'll add your text to the |
The recommended addition includes the 'excluded license' section which |
Neil, you are right. I was thinking about linking to the binary dll As Python does not distribute any source code from Microsoft, it is |
This is now fixed in r66460 and r66462; the text that gets included is |
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:
bugs.python.org fields:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: