That's an interesting point.

However, it's not a new one. This "loop-hole" in the GPL licenses has often been called "software-as-a-service" (SaaS) loop-hole.

That is why there were created a license that fixes this: the Affero General Public License (AGPL).

However, I haven't ever though of applying the SaaS clause in relation to applications running on "iProduct" devices. But I doubt it will hold, unless the application either run on Apples own web servers, or if Apple still (for some reason) still was the legal owner of your piece of hardware, minimum.

If the SaaS "loop-hole" also will be usable for applications running in locked virtual machines/locked-down devices this is a major reason to consider to use AGPL in stead of GPL for your next FOSS project.

That's interesting facts about the changing terms you're pointing out.

However, you should not necessarily confuse GPLv2 for a EULA. Or that would really depend on how you define an End-User License Agreement (EULA).

IANAL, but from what I've read, generally, GPLv2/v3 isn't considered an EULA in the proprietary legal-speak sence, since there is no obligations that you as a *user* of the software have to agree upon before using it.

The GPLv2/v3 will grant you as a GPL software *user* a set of *rights* though, which may be beneficial to you (the "4 freedoms", ref FSF). But this isn't anything you have to agree upon -- you don't even have to take advantage of them.

However, you only have to *agree* with the GPLv2/v3 license when you *distribute* the GPL licensed software (this may happen some time after you have used it, or it may never happen at all). You can use the software all that you want, but you are not allowed to re-distribute it unless you oblige to the GPL license term (which in effect ensures that the down-stream receivers of the software you distribute also receives the same essential 4 freedoms as you were entitled to).

So, if it were a legal cage battle on this topic among true lawyers, it isn't obvious that the GPLv2 (nor v3) would be legally classified as a "End-User License Agreement".

Haha. Just wait until that browser selection web page gets defaced! :-]

But I agree with you, a randomization upon every page load should not be any hard to add. As far as I can tell, Microsoft should not be able to give any reasonable arguments against that.

It seems like you didn't RTFA.

The EC has NOT ordered Microsoft to strip out IE from their upcoming Win 7 release. This is fully Microsoft's idea for a "solution". It is a clever move of course, it will prevent other browser makers any free back-riding on Microsoft's Windows (which has also been discussed as a solution, at least by the plaintiffs).

Yes. And that's exactly what they said: The GTA03 project (their intended/announced next phone, aka plan A) is canned, They're doing a not-a-phone-device instead.

So does Steve Jobs too! And SUN Microsystems. And United States of America. And as you said, there's a ton of examples. Now what was your point again? Everything that claims it's not dead is? Or isn't?

Newspapers (in paper) often contain articles with 2.8" wide columns -- and I thought those 'papers were meant for reading! I mean, I think your eye will quickly adapt to a text with relatively narrow pagewidth. While not having to jump so much horizontally, you can rather scroll the text with your thumb on the hand holding the device in a tempo suiting your own reading pace to compensate for the vertical eye movement for each line. I think it'll work out fine, reading several meters of 2.8" wide books quite neatly.