[News] Proprietary Software Can Never Be Bought
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
How To Make Software Agreeable
,----[Quote ]
| This is why the current state of software is broken, even within the likes of
| the GPL. Any rights have to be granted by someone that usually would not have
| that power, unless they were Government. Licensing, whether it's the GPL or
| the normal state of proprietary software grants the original author the power
| to limit or extend the original rights, often at the expense of someone else.
|
| The only way to change this is to move software from the licensing model to
| an ownership model. To use the age old clichéd car hypothetical situation,
| but in much more detail, when I buy the car, I have ownership. It is an
| inanimate object - it is not licensed to me, it is not told to me that the
| selling and buying of the car is a service and that I can only work within
| the contract terms of said service. I own the car, I can modify the car, I
| can study and repair the car myself, buy replacement parts that I then own
| and can use at my discretion, and at the same time Toyota or whoever I bought
| it from can, if it wants, not provide support as I have changed their
| original model of car and cannot be expected to be able to know fully or at
| least support something which they did not make and sell themselves (the
| original unaltered form, yes, but the new modified form I would be talking
| about, no).
|
| [...]
|
| Licensing should be for temporary, trial or dire need purposes, and should be
| kept in said sector. Ownership should apply to everything else. From the
| physical PC itself, to the software and OS I use on it.
`----
http://somethingmild.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-to-make-software-agreeable.html
Recent:
MSN Music Debacle Highlights EULA Dangers
,----[ Quote ]
| MSN Music’s EULA is a case in point. When active, MSN Music's webpage touted
| that customers could “choose their device and know its going to work”.
|
| But when customers went to purchase songs, they were shown legalese that
| stated the download service and the content provided were sold without
| warrantee. In other words, Microsoft doesn't promise you that the service or
| the music will work, or that you will always have access to music you bought.
| The flashy advertising promised your music, your way, but the fine print
| said, our way or the highway.
`----
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/05/msn-music-debacle-highlights-eula-dangers
EFF: Microsoft betrayed MSN Music customers
,----[ Quote ]
| The Electronic Frontier Foundation says that Microsoft has "betrayed" MSN
| Music customers and wants the company to make things right by issuing an
| apology, refunds, and eliminate digital rights management technology from the
| Zune music player.
`----
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9931304-7.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
Related:
EULA: What Are You Signing Away?
,----[ Quote ]
| EULAs are not negotiated or negotiable, they are rarely read, and they are
| frequently difficult to obtain, said Rasch. "I just bought an iPhone and
| couldn't even see the TOS until I opened the box, synched the iPhone and then
| agreed to the TOS -- and had to pay a restocking fee and activation fee if I
| disagreed," Rasch commented.
`----
http://www.linuxinsider.com/rsstory/58451.html
Unusable EULA's
,----[ Quote ]
| Microsoft's instant messenger app had a surprisingly readable EULA,
| but was a snooze-inducing 12 pages and 6,343 words long.
`----
http://www.usabilityblog.com/blog/archives/2007/03/unusable_eulas.php
MSN AdCenter - Impossible to read TOS
,----[ Quote ]
| As you can see from the screenshot above (click it to enlarge), the
| MSN AdCenter TOS is enclosed in a small box, approximately 1-inch
| wide by about 1/2-inch tall! Maybe it's because I was using Firefox
| and not Microsoft's Internet Explorer, but I still find it comical to
| the point of absurdity. I still signed up, but I wonder what Microsoft
| is hiding in that tiny box?
`----
http://grownupgeek.blogspot.com/2007/01/msn-adcenter-impossible-to-read-tos.html
Windows Vista's new spin on licensing
,----[ Quote ]
| As with corporate software licenses, the primary end goal here seems
| to be to maximize revenues for Microsoft, but MS's moves have the
| unfortunate secondary effect of eroding the consumer's fair-use rights
| --or at least the very useful illusion of fair-use rights--in the
| process.
`----
http://techreport.com/etc/2007q1/vista-licensing/index.x?pg=1reve
Vista's legal fine print raises red flags
,----[ Quote ]
| For greater certainty, the terms and conditions remove any doubt about who
| is in control by providing that "this agreement only gives you some rights
| to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights."
|
| [...]
|
| When Microsoft introduced Windows 95 more than a decade ago, it adopted the
| Rolling Stones "Start Me Up" as its theme song. As millions of consumers
| contemplate the company's latest upgrade, the legal and technological
| restrictions may leave them singing "You Can't Always Get What You Want."
`----
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/175801
A sneaky change in Windows licensing terms
,----[ Quote ]
| With a retail version of Windows XP, there are no restrictions on the
| number of times you can transfer the software from one computer to another
| in your household or office. That's about to change for the worse in
| Vista, with only one lifetime transfer allowed. It makes the outrageous
| price difference between retail and OEM copies even more difficult
| to justify.
`----
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=156
Microsoft flip-flops on Vista virtualization
,----[ Quote ]
| Software like Parallels Desktop for the Mac or Microsoft's own Virtual
| PC for Windows allow multiple operating systems to run simultaneously.
| When it announced licensing rules for Vista last year, Microsoft said
| that only Vista Business and Vista Ultimate could run as guest
| operating systems. The company said virtualization presents inherent
| security risks and that it hoped by limiting which versions of the OS
| could act as virtual machines, only sophisticated users and businesses
| would employ the tactic.
`----
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6191787.html
Microsoft is bad for business
,----[ Quote ]
| I recently read an article regarding the copy protection methods of
| Microsoft's next Operating system, Vista. And my jaw literally dropped to
| the floor.
|
| Microsoft is, in essence, a control freak.
|
| [...]
|
| Microsoft is bad for business because they take this level of
| annoyance to the highest level in Windows Vista.
|
| [...]
|
| Microsoft, hear what your customers are saying. You're doing a lot of
| things wrong lately. You're making the wrong choices in your business
| decisions. Other available operating systems are staking a claim at
| your dominance of the market. What will you do next?
`----
http://techstuff.goboardz.com/forum_topic.asp?ID=1102
Vista's EULA Product Activation Worries
,----[ Quote ]
| Mark Rasch looks at the license agreement for Windows Vista and how its
| product activation component, which can disable operation of the computer,
| may be like walking on thin ice.
|
| [...]
|
| "Does the Microsoft EULA adequately tell you what will happen if you
| don't activate the product or if you can't establish that it is
| genuine? Well, not exactly. It does tell you that some parts of the
| product won't work - but it also ambiguously says that the product
| itself won't work. Moreover, it allows Microsoft, through fine print
| in a generally unread and non negotiable agreement, to create an
| opportunity for economic extortion."
`----
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423
TechnoFile: Incomprehensible gobbledygook and you
,----[ Quote ]
| Another fun tidbit: "The software is licensed, not sold. This
| agreement only gives you some rights to use the software.
| Microsoft reserves all other rights." So you don't own your
| operating system, Microsoft is just lending it to you.
|
| [...]
|
| Compare these terms with Ubuntu, the Linux distribution I use:
| "You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of
| it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute
| such modifications or work." I'm free to copy and change it as I please,
| and then to give those changes to other people. I sincerely doubt
| Microsoft will be issuing those terms anytime soon.
`----
http://www.mcgilldaily.com/view.php?aid=5712
Tough new rules on Vista "OEM"
,----[ Quote
| This marks the death of the popular once-off 'I'll take one hard drive
| and an OEM copy of Windows with that, thanks' flavour of
| OS-sundae.
|
| Microsoft has also tightened up the specific rules around what
| hardware an OEM copy of Windows can be sold with.
|
| Straight from the horse's mouth -- "spokesperson" at Microsoft
| Australia:
|
| "OEM versions of Windows Vista must be distributed to end-user
| with a fully assembled computer system and must be pre-installed."
|
| Dang!
|
| To make the matter even more complex, Microsoft says that even with a
| "transfer to a new PC as many times as you like" retail edition, you will
| only be allowed to transfer your licence for Vista to someone else once.
`----
Vista licensing also limits benchmarking
,----[ Quote ]
| License transfers aren't the only thing the End User License Agreement
| (EULA) for Microsoft Corp.'s Windows Vista OS limits. The license
| also puts restrictions on how benchmarks of certain components of
| the OS can be published, another issue that is raising eyebrows as
| Microsoft still has not clarified how changes will specifically
| affect users.
|
| According to the Vista EULA, because the OS contains "one or more
| components" of the .Net Framework 3.0, users can conduct internal
| benchmarking of those components, but can't disclose the results
| of those benchmarks -- or measurements to compare rival products
| -- unless they comply with conditions found at a Microsoft Web
| site.
`----
http://www.itworld.com/Comp/2218/061101vistalicense/index.html
Vista EULA stirs up a storm
,----[ Quote ]
| Is Microsoft trying to stop people from copying their icons?
| The same icons that were stolen from the likes of varying
| icon sets under Linux? Are they trying to keep the layout
| or organization of their screens protected as an IP right?
| I think that was done away with in the 90s when Apple sued
| Microsoft over Windows and the judge said basically thats
| ome things just can be copyrighted. Is Microsoft worried
| that the Linux community might try to copy their structure
| and implement it into various distibutions of Linux?
`----
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35184
Vista EULA restricts display to one person
,----[ Quote ]
| Paragraph 3C of the EULA states that while the software
| is running, you can use but not share its icons, images,
| sounds and media.
|
| If Microsoft means to word the EULA this way, that implies
| you can't use projectors or linked video monitors if there's
| more than one human being present.
|
| It also implies that you can't take a screen shot of the
| Vista desktop.
`----
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35108
Do Microsoft's EULAs have any real legal basis?
,----[ Quote ]
| "Microsoft has no special exemption from the sale of goods act." Well,
| no, probably not - but it might still be selling you "services"
| instead of "goods". But the real point to remember is that it doesn't
| matter a jot what the "logical" position is, it is what the courts
| decide that matters.
|
| As far as I know, no one has tested Microsoft's EULAs in a UK court
| and, until someone does, Microsoft will just go on assuming that they
| work. And I don't fancy the risk of taking on Microsoft's expensive
| lawyers in court myself...
`----
http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2007/04/25/microsoft_eula/
Use Health Vault, Lose Your Rights
,----[ Quote ]
| Microsoft has announced (NY Times Article) Health Vault. What should have
| followed here is a review of the service by my actually trying it.
|
| [...]
|
| Heard enough? So had I. I'm absolutely going to pass on Health Vault. In
| addition to looking like the Microsoft Passport debacle redux, this is a very
| one-sided contract. They can harm you but you cannot harm them. There is no
| way for any 3rd party to verify that their privacy and security software
| works.
`----
http://www.linuxmednews.com/1191521272
HealthVault: No Commitments and a Sleeping Watchdog.
,----[ Quote ]
| Has Microsoft committed to keeping the promises that it has already made? No,
| just the opposite. Their privacy policy concludes:“We may occasionally update
| this privacy statement”
|
| Which means that when the commitments that Microsoft has made regarding
| HealthVault become inconvenient, they will simply change them.
`----
http://www.fredtrotter.com/2007/10/22/healthvault-no-commitments-and-a-sleeping-watchdog/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkh861sACgkQU4xAY3RXLo7HmQCcCPdFoX6GjSzVCzD5DDZ4h+ob
RD0AnjJd4NZpTGrOuszI45jCAPltf3rh
=26+o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Homer
> | The only way to change this is to move software from the licensing
> | model to an ownership model.
I think this author's heart is in the right place, but his arguments are
completely bogus.
Software is not, and can never be, considered to be real property, since
it is not an object, it is an expression of ideas, and the nearest thing
to the transfer of ideas is called learning, which is not quite the same
thing as taking possession of an object. Ideas are bought and sold under
the current patent regime, but IMO this kind of "transfer" is unethical.
Proposing a system where "everyone becomes the owner" is effectively the
same as a system where "no one is the owner", which is a much better way
of looking at it, since surely the basic premise is to avoid exclusivity
and restriction. AFAICT this is precisely what the GPL provides, as it's
premise is inclusion rather than exclusion (hence the reason it's called
CopyLeft rather than Copyright).
One detail the author neglects to consider is the element of attribution
for created work, which surely the original author deserves. Without the
protection of a licence, how would correct attribution be maintained? He
also fails to understand that the GPL is about spreading the ideology of
Freedom through the protection of that Freedom. The free-for-all concept
that the author suggests is rather too much like the BSD, although given
that /everyone/ becomes the "owner" in his imaginary situation I suppose
that's a moot point, provided that such a system was universally adopted
and maintained, otherwise downstream recipients could simply alter their
new "property" to become proprietary software that they subsequently use
to restrict others' Freedom.
One idea that I considered is the concept of shared ownership (not to be
confused with Microsoft's Shared Source which is basically a reinvention
of other licenses). In this scenario developers would voluntarily donate
software to a foundation, that would licence this software under the GPL
and grant equal ownership to all members of this foundation, which would
included anyone who donated; distributed or even used that software. The
members of this foundation would then all be part-owners of every single
software project in that foundation's collection, and thus have an equal
right to determine the fate of all that software, including whether that
software was sold on to a third party. This would then make it extremely
difficult for predatory companies to take ownership of Free Software, as
the number of owners could potentially comprise millions of people.
The problem of exclusivity cannot be addressed by even more exclusivity,
even if it's some weird kind of universal "exclusivity". It is better by
far to think in terms of Freedom though /inclusion/. We already have the
GPL for that, since it protects our Freedom to distribute; study; modify
and use software created and copyrighted by others. The creation of some
kind of shared ownership foundation would further protect that software,
by ensuring that all future versions /remained/ Free, since transferring
ownership would be impractical. And yet even this shared ownership model
would be inclusive, as one would become an "owner" simply by /using/ the
software.
In an ideal world such "protections" would not be necessary, but as long
as there are predatory forces out there with an agenda of domination, we
need to have ways to counter their predatory advances.
Turning everyone in the world into a mini-dictator, is not the answer.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining
| armour to lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos
| neatly ignores the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate
| technology, led them into it in the first place." ~ Douglas Adams
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
03:13:47 up 207 days, 23:49, 4 users, load average: 0.80, 0.42, 0.32
Moshe Goldfarb.
> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>
>>| The only way to change this is to move software from the licensing
>> | model to an ownership model.
>
> I think this author's heart is in the right place, but his arguments are
> completely bogus.
>
> Software is not, and can never be, considered to be real property, since
> it is not an object, it is an expression of ideas, and the nearest thing
> to the transfer of ideas is called learning, which is not quite the same
> thing as taking possession of an object. Ideas are bought and sold under
> the current patent regime, but IMO this kind of "transfer" is unethical.
You're a complete ass [Homer].
Snip---- a diatribe of paranoia......
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/