InfoWorld: M$ wants to control content
bball
M$ now has this in its Front Page 2002 license agreement:
"You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages
Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services..."
InfoWorld, pg. 70, 9/17/2001, issue #38
my response:
"Fuck Microsoft. Fuck MSN. Fuck MSNBC. Fuck Expedia. Fuck all Microsoft
products. Fuck Bill Gates. Fuck Steve Ballmer. Fuck all Microsoft
employees. Fuck Microsoft, Inc. Fuck all Windows lusers. Fuck all
box-of-rocks followers of Satan, and minions of the Dark Side. Fuck UCITA.
Fuck DMCA. Fuck EULAs. Fuck RIAA. Fuck the MPAA. Fuck Adobe. Fuck
commercial software. Fuck the Patent and Trademark Office. Fuck lawyers."
"Welcome to Microsoft - the Taliban of the computer software and hardware
industry."
God Bless Linux developers and users. Do not worry. Good will win over
Evil, and Evil will be punished.
mmn...@mmnnoo.org
> in yet another slap-in-the-face to its mindless customers and idiot users,
> M$ now has this in its Front Page 2002 license agreement:
>
> "You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages
> Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services..."
>
> InfoWorld, pg. 70, 9/17/2001, issue #38
>
This sounds like a good urban myth. Can you confirm this?
Grand Master K
XP RULES THAT ASS!
Michael Vester
>
> But who would want to?
>
> XP RULES THAT ASS!
>
XP, bringing the trailer court to the Internet.
--
Since the last power outage
7:47pm up 24 days, 8:56, 1 user, load average: 1.42, 1.22, 1.14
Spammers, feel free to eat these...
bob...@sudanmail.com vaness...@freeze.com ad...@byemails.com
ab...@skynetweb.com sup...@skynetweb.com
ms...@microsoft.com richa...@eudoramail.com ab...@msn.com
Craig Kelley
> in yet another slap-in-the-face to its mindless customers and idiot users,
> M$ now has this in its Front Page 2002 license agreement:
>
> "You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages
> Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services..."
>
> InfoWorld, pg. 70, 9/17/2001, issue #38
Please provide a link proving that statement; I don't believe even
Microsoft could be so arrogant.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- kell...@isu.edu
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger i...@inconnu.isu.edu for PGP block
bball
>billy...@home.org (bball) writes:
>
>> in yet another slap-in-the-face to its mindless customers and idiot users,
>> M$ now has this in its Front Page 2002 license agreement:
>>
>> "You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages
>> Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services..."
>>
>> InfoWorld, pg. 70, 9/17/2001, issue #38
>
>Please provide a link proving that statement; I don't believe even
>Microsoft could be so arrogant.
i have the hard copy of InfoWorld in my hand (got it via U.S. Snail
today)... i've provided the page number, date, and issue number... how much
more specific can i be? i haven't researched it on-line, but all you have
to do is read Ed Foster's column...
if this is a malicious false fact printed by InfoWorld, then i retract my
statement and will eat the paper on which the paragraph is printed...
bb
bball
do you want me to fax you the article?
Morbad
personally put up a site and make them sue me. This is bogus OK maybe one
reporter in one magazine reported a bogus story not the first time, show me
the agreement on microsofts site then. If this was true it would be front
page everywhere by now, especially on SUN, IBM, and NETSCAPE Pages.
Gary Hallock
<billy...@home.org> wrote:
> On 17 Sep 2001 20:07:59 -0600, Craig Kelley <i...@inconnu.isu.edu> wrote:
>>billy...@home.org (bball) writes:
>>
>>> in yet another slap-in-the-face to its mindless customers and idiot
>>> users, M$ now has this in its Front Page 2002 license agreement:
>>>
>>> "You may not use the Software in connection with any site that
>>> disparages
>>> Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services..."
>>>
>>> InfoWorld, pg. 70, 9/17/2001, issue #38
>>
>>Please provide a link proving that statement; I don't believe even
>>Microsoft could be so arrogant.
>
> i have the hard copy of InfoWorld in my hand (got it via U.S. Snail
> today)... i've provided the page number, date, and issue number... how
> much more specific can i be? i haven't researched it on-line, but all
> you have to do is read Ed Foster's column...
>
> if this is a malicious false fact printed by InfoWorld, then i retract
> my statement and will eat the paper on which the paragraph is printed...
>
Here's the link:
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/01/09/17/010917opfoster.xml
This is insane as well as totally illegal. Could MS lawyers really be
this stupid? I've often wondered if clearly illegal sections in a
license invalidate the entire license. Any lawyers out there?
Gary
bball
>
>> in yet another slap-in-the-face to its mindless customers and idiot users,
>> M$ now has this in its Front Page 2002 license agreement:
>>
>> "You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages
>> Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services..."
>>
>> InfoWorld, pg. 70, 9/17/2001, issue #38
>
>Please provide a link proving that statement; I don't believe even
>Microsoft could be so arrogant.
jeezus! doesn't *anyone* know how to search the freakin' web? (must be
because they're using Internet Exploder and never used a text-based
browser or search engine... freakin' naive lusers)...
here you go:
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/01/09/17/010917opfoster.xml
John Saunders
news:slrn9qd809.u...@green.home.org...
> in yet another slap-in-the-face to its mindless customers and idiot users,
> M$ now has this in its Front Page 2002 license agreement:
>
> "You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages
> Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services..."
>
> InfoWorld, pg. 70, 9/17/2001, issue #38
That's not in the Frontpage 2002 EULA on my machine. Do you find that on
their web site? I don't find a 9/17/01 issue, either. Only 9/16/01 and
9/23/01.
--
John Saunders
j...@ma.ultranet.com
John Saunders
news:3ba6b...@news3.prserv.net...
This loser Foster should be sued for libel. If an alert reader caught that
in the EULA, surely Foster should have himself looked at the EULA before
publishing his article.
Like I've said before, it's not in the EULA on my machine. If anyone finds
that in their EULA, please post chapter and verse.
--
John Saunders
j...@ma.ultranet.com
GreyCloud
But who would want to?XP RULES THAT ASS!
-- *---------------------------------------------------------* BEER, helping ugly people have sex, since 1864.
GreyCloud
I tried to look up their product on their webpage,
but my browser only gets Windows Office XP. The selections
are locked out for some reason.
GreyCloud
On 17 Sep 2001 20:07:59 -0600, Craig Kelley <i...@inconnu.isu.edu> wrote:
>billy...@home.org (bball) writes:
>
>> in yet another slap-in-the-face to its mindless customers and idiot users,
>> M$ now has this in its Front Page 2002 license agreement:
>>
>> "You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages
>> Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services..."
>>
>> InfoWorld, pg. 70, 9/17/2001, issue #38
>
>Please provide a link proving that statement; I don't believe even
>Microsoft could be so arrogant.jeezus! doesn't *anyone* know how to search the freakin' web? (must be
because they're using Internet Exploder and never used a text-based
browser or search engine... freakin' naive lusers)...here you go:
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/01/09/17/010917opfoster.xml
I don't think they will let me in.
Must be some truth to it then.
-- *---------------------------------------------------------* BEER, helping ugly people have sex, since 1864.
GreyCloud
be refuted in public I suppose. I've seen this kind of reporting before. Usually,
all there would ever be is a retraction.
Tim Smith
>This is insane as well as totally illegal.
How is it illegal?
--Tim Smith
Erik Funkenbusch
Which is why it's not true.
At least not in the Retail EULA i'm looking at. It could be that
promotional copies have some kind of clause like that, but that would be MS
saying "I'm giving you this, don't use my own gift to disparage me".
Can anyone find an actual copy of the EULA that says this? If not, chalk it
up to more urban legends.
Erik Funkenbusch
> On 17 Sep 2001 20:07:59 -0600, Craig Kelley <i...@inconnu.isu.edu> wrote:
> >billy...@home.org (bball) writes:
> >
> >> in yet another slap-in-the-face to its mindless customers and idiot
users,
> >> M$ now has this in its Front Page 2002 license agreement:
> >>
> >> "You may not use the Software in connection with any site that
disparages
> >> Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services..."
> >>
> >> InfoWorld, pg. 70, 9/17/2001, issue #38
> >
> >Please provide a link proving that statement; I don't believe even
> >Microsoft could be so arrogant.
>
> jeezus! doesn't *anyone* know how to search the freakin' web? (must be
> because they're using Internet Exploder and never used a text-based
> browser or search engine... freakin' naive lusers)...
>
> here you go:
>
> http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/01/09/17/010917opfoster.xml
That's the link to the article, not a link to proof supporting it.
Ian Pegel
> in yet another slap-in-the-face to its mindless customers and idiot users,
> M$ now has this in its Front Page 2002 license agreement:
>
> "You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages
> Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services..."
Can they really do this? I thought freedom of expression was enshrined
right there, deep in the US constitution. Hell, if I lived in the US it
might just be enough to amke me by a copy of Frontpage, write soemthing
disparaging and then point it out to MS and say "come and get me!"
> InfoWorld, pg. 70, 9/17/2001, issue #38
>
> my response:
>
> "Fuck Microsoft. Fuck MSN. Fuck MSNBC. Fuck Expedia. Fuck all Microsoft
> products. Fuck Bill Gates. Fuck Steve Ballmer. Fuck all Microsoft
> employees. Fuck Microsoft, Inc. Fuck all Windows lusers. Fuck all
> box-of-rocks followers of Satan, and minions of the Dark Side. Fuck UCITA.
> Fuck DMCA. Fuck EULAs. Fuck RIAA. Fuck the MPAA. Fuck Adobe. Fuck
> commercial software. Fuck the Patent and Trademark Office. Fuck lawyers."
I wouldn't waste my time on them... let's carry on building our very own
special version of distopia...
> "Welcome to Microsoft - the Taliban of the computer software and hardware
> industry."
>
> God Bless Linux developers and users. Do not worry. Good will win over
> Evil, and Evil will be punished.
>
Good will over the evil Win(dows)?
Ian
PS (quick note to Terry - not trolling, just trying a different newsreader!)
Ian Pegel
Interesting... if it's not true someone needs their nose tweaking. Linux
Advocacy can strut its funky stuff without this kind of story...
Ian
B'ichela
The Magizine Name: InfoWorld
Page : 70
Date of Pub : 9/17/2001
Issue Number : 38
That should be enough to go to a research Library and look it up!
--
B'ichela
Bob Tennent
> Interesting... if it's not true someone needs their nose tweaking. Linux
> Advocacy can strut its funky stuff without this kind of story...
Ed Foster and InfoWorld are not Linux advocates. It may not be true that the
FrontPage 2002 EULA has this clause but you can't blame Linux advocates for
publicizing statements made in a fairly reputable journal.
Bob T.
Gary Hallock
<FBD50D21555011FD.6916B481...@lp.airnews.net>, "Tim
Smith" <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
In the US it is. It violates the 1st amendment.
Gary
rich
It's the column entitled "The Gripe Line" by Ed Foster.
--
There is a sobbing of the strong / And a pall upon the land
But the People in their weeping / Bare the iron hand
Beware the people weeping / When they bare the iron hand --Herman Melville
rich
You'd best go back and read the First Amendment again, which says that
"CONGRESS [my emphasis] shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech."
Microsoft can abridge any damn thing they want.
rich
>bball wrote:
>
>> in yet another slap-in-the-face to its mindless customers and idiot users,
>> M$ now has this in its Front Page 2002 license agreement:
>>
>> "You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages
>> Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services..."
>
>
>Can they really do this? I thought freedom of expression was enshrined
>right there, deep in the US constitution. Hell, if I lived in the US it
>might just be enough to amke me by a copy of Frontpage, write soemthing
>disparaging and then point it out to MS and say "come and get me!"
Go for it. The US Constitution, despite impressions to the contrary, preserves
the freedom of speech from any laws enacted by Congress. Says nothing about
what a private company can do with its software product. If MSFT wanted to
prohibit you from talking about blond haired girls with blue eyes using
Microsoft Word, they could install technology to do just that. And it would
be, as they say, as legal as "Church on Sunday."
John Saunders
news:9o7g9g$8...@nntpb.cb.lucent.com...
> Also schrieb mda...@pinkrose.local.net:
> >On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 01:21:12 GMT, mmn...@mmnnoo.org <mmn...@mmnnoo.org>
wrote:
> >>bball wrote:
> >>
> >>> in yet another slap-in-the-face to its mindless customers and idiot
users,
> >>> M$ now has this in its Front Page 2002 license agreement:
> >>>
> >>> "You may not use the Software in connection with any site that
disparages
> >>> Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services..."
> >>>
> >>> InfoWorld, pg. 70, 9/17/2001, issue #38
> >>>
> >>
> >>This sounds like a good urban myth. Can you confirm this?
> >>
> > He did! he gave you this:
> >The Magizine Name: InfoWorld
> >Page : 70
> >Date of Pub : 9/17/2001
> >Issue Number : 38
> >
> >That should be enough to go to a research Library and look it up!
>
> It's the column entitled "The Gripe Line" by Ed Foster.
That confirms that Ed Foster wrote that column. It doesn't confirm that what
he wrote is true.
--
John Saunders
j...@ma.ultranet.com
Craig Kelley
> Interesting... if it's not true someone needs their nose tweaking. Linux
> Advocacy can strut its funky stuff without this kind of story...
Are you implying that Infoworld is a Linux advocate? Nothing could be
further from the truth.
Craig Kelley
> On 17 Sep 2001 20:07:59 -0600, Craig Kelley <i...@inconnu.isu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Please provide a link proving that statement; I don't believe even
> >Microsoft could be so arrogant.
>
> jeezus! doesn't *anyone* know how to search the freakin' web? (must be
> because they're using Internet Exploder and never used a text-based
> browser or search engine... freakin' naive lusers)...
>
> here you go:
>
> http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/01/09/17/010917opfoster.xml
I meant to provide a link corroborating the story, not a link to the
same article you already quoted. I have been looking but have found
nothing.
Unknown
>my response:
>
>"Fuck Microsoft. Fuck MSN. Fuck MSNBC. Fuck Expedia. Fuck all Microsoft
>products. Fuck Bill Gates. Fuck Steve Ballmer. Fuck all Microsoft
>employees. Fuck Microsoft, Inc. Fuck all Windows lusers. Fuck all
>box-of-rocks followers of Satan, and minions of the Dark Side. Fuck UCITA.
>Fuck DMCA. Fuck EULAs. Fuck RIAA. Fuck the MPAA. Fuck Adobe. Fuck
>commercial software. Fuck the Patent and Trademark Office. Fuck lawyers."
>
>"Welcome to Microsoft - the Taliban of the computer software and hardware
>industry."
>
>God Bless Linux developers and users. Do not worry. Good will win over
>Evil, and Evil will be punished.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
bball
sorry... my goof... the issue is 9/16/2001 (can't type in the dark)..
>--
>John Saunders
>j...@ma.ultranet.com
>
>
>
bball
>On 18 Sep 2001 01:13:12 GMT, billy...@home.org (bball) wrote:
>
>>my response:
>>
>>"Fuck Microsoft. Fuck MSN. Fuck MSNBC. Fuck Expedia. Fuck all Microsoft
>>products. Fuck Bill Gates. Fuck Steve Ballmer. Fuck all Microsoft
>>employees. Fuck Microsoft, Inc. Fuck all Windows lusers. Fuck all
>>box-of-rocks followers of Satan, and minions of the Dark Side. Fuck UCITA.
>>Fuck DMCA. Fuck EULAs. Fuck RIAA. Fuck the MPAA. Fuck Adobe. Fuck
>>commercial software. Fuck the Patent and Trademark Office. Fuck lawyers."
>>
>>"Welcome to Microsoft - the Taliban of the computer software and hardware
>>industry."
>>
>>God Bless Linux developers and users. Do not worry. Good will win over
>>Evil, and Evil will be punished.
>
>What the fuck is wrong with you?
hey, thanks for asking!
i don't like Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, Microsoft products, Bill
Gates, Steve Baller, Microsoft employees, Microsoft, Inc., Windows lusers,
followers of Satan, minions of the Dark Side, UCITA, DMCA, EULAs, RIAA, the
MPAA, Adobe, commercial software, the P&TO, and bottom-feeders...
oh, and this might be off topic, but fuck Michael Jackson too!
:-)
Gary Hallock
wrote:
> Also schrieb gha...@attglobal.net:
>>In article
>><FBD50D21555011FD.6916B481...@lp.airnews.net>,
>>"Tim
>>Smith" <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Gary Hallock" <gha...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>This is insane as well as totally illegal.
>>>
>>> How is it illegal?
>>
>>In the US it is. It violates the 1st amendment.
>
> You'd best go back and read the First Amendment again, which says that
> "CONGRESS [my emphasis] shall make no law... abridging the freedom of
> speech."
>
That's true. And the 14th amendment limits the states as well.
> Microsoft can abridge any damn thing they want.
>
No they can not. No one can take away my basic rights. Microsoft can
write whatever they want on a piece of paper, but it doesn't mean squat.
The contract is illegal, i.e. unenforceable. What's next? A paper
company taking control of what is written in the NY Times? A pencil
company controlling what you can write with their pencils?
Actually, a case might be made that the act of coercing people to agree
to a contract that is clearly an attempt to take away such a basic right
as freedom of speech when MS knows it is unenforceable is a violation of
a persons civil rights.
Gary
Erik Funkenbusch
The first amendment only applies to what the government can do.
I, as a private citizen, can force you to not say things while on my
property, or force you to leave.
Gary Hallock
<er...@visi.com> wrote:
The license is a contract, enforced by the government. The government
can not enforce a contract that violates my civil rights. Therefore the
contract is unenforceable.
Gary
Erik Funkenbusch
Not true at all. Again, the first ammendment talks only about congress
making laws to abridge the freedom of speech.
Any court in the land will uphold my right to kick you off my property for
saying things I don't like. Of course I can't force you to leave the
neighborhood, so you can stand across the street and say the same thing, but
if you're actually on my property, then I can do just about anything short
of killing you (and even then, if posted no tresspassing, I may be able to
do that as well.
Gary Hallock
<er...@visi.com> wrote:
>
> Not true at all. Again, the first ammendment talks only about congress
> making laws to abridge the freedom of speech.
>
So you honestly believe that such a license would stand up in court?
What if I have a monoply on pencils. What if I tell you what you can and
can not write with one of my pencils?
> Any court in the land will uphold my right to kick you off my property
> for saying things I don't like. Of course I can't force you to leave
> the neighborhood, so you can stand across the street and say the same
> thing, but if you're actually on my property, then I can do just about
> anything short of killing you (and even then, if posted no tresspassing,
> I may be able to do that as well.
>
You may want to rethink that one. What kind of kick are you talking
about? No court in the land will uphold your right to use excessive
violence. What country are you from? Surely not the USA.
Gary
Tim Smith
>> "Gary Hallock" <gha...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>This is insane as well as totally illegal.
>>
>> How is it illegal?
>
>In the US it is. It violates the 1st amendment.
It does not violate the First Amendment.
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
>No they can not. No one can take away my basic rights. Microsoft can
>write whatever they want on a piece of paper, but it doesn't mean squat.
>The contract is illegal, i.e. unenforceable. What's next? A paper
You are very confused over the state of contract law in the United
States. You are allowed to give up most "basic" rights by contract.
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
>>This sounds like a good urban myth. Can you confirm this?
>>
> He did! he gave you this:
>The Magizine Name: InfoWorld
>Page : 70
>Date of Pub : 9/17/2001
>Issue Number : 38
>
>That should be enough to go to a research Library and look it up!
No, that doesn't give enough information to confirm it, because all
the magazine says is that an "alert" reader spotted it. The reader is
not named, and the magazine writer did not check it out himself. So
far, there have been *ZERO* first-person reports confirming that
license term, and several first-person reports from people whose
FP2002 license does NOT have that term.
Microsoft does license the same product under multiple terms
sometimes, so it is possible that some FP2002 copies have that
license, but there is no creditable evidence for that so far.
--Tim Smith
Erik Funkenbusch
In the US, you're allowed to defend your property with deadly force.
For instance, out in Arizona, there are various gold and silver mines that
have roads that run through the property (a good example is on Route 66 near
Oatman) where there are signs that say "Do not stop or leave the road, you
will be shot if you trespass).
Gary Hallock
<er...@visi.com> wrote:
> "Gary Hallock" <gha...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:3ba7f...@news3.prserv.net...
>> In article <59Rp7.24315$x84.6...@ruti.visi.com>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
>> <er...@visi.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Not true at all. Again, the first ammendment talks only about
>> > congress making laws to abridge the freedom of speech.
>> >
>>
>> So you honestly believe that such a license would stand up in court?
>> What if I have a monoply on pencils. What if I tell you what you can
>> and can not write with one of my pencils?
>>
>> > Any court in the land will uphold my right to kick you off my
>> > property for saying things I don't like. Of course I can't force you
>> > to leave the neighborhood, so you can stand across the street and say
>> > the same thing, but if you're actually on my property, then I can do
>> > just about anything short of killing you (and even then, if posted no
>> > tresspassing, I may be able to do that as well.
>>
>> You may want to rethink that one. What kind of kick are you talking
>> about? No court in the land will uphold your right to use excessive
>> violence. What country are you from? Surely not the USA.
>
> In the US, you're allowed to defend your property with deadly force.
>
No you are not.
> For instance, out in Arizona, there are various gold and silver mines
> that have roads that run through the property (a good example is on
> Route 66 near Oatman) where there are signs that say "Do not stop or
> leave the road, you will be shot if you trespass).
>
You are allowed to put up the signs. Try shooting someone and find out
for yourself.
Gary
Erik Funkenbusch
Yeah. You remember a few years ago when the Japanese student going to a
Halloween party was shot by a paranoid guy? He wasn't convicted.
Mark Kent
Interesting That's certainly not the case here. Overly restrictive
contracts are just not enforcable, *but*, even if one bit is too
restrictive, other bits can still stand.
--
Mark Kent
Take out the ham to mail me.
Mark Kent
Bottom feeders? (I understand the rest).
Gary Hallock
<er...@visi.com> wrote:
> Yeah. You remember a few years ago when the Japanese student going to a
> Halloween party was shot by a paranoid guy? He wasn't convicted
A travesty of justice. He was convicted for 16-24 months, but not for
manslaughter. And the students parents won $653,000 in damages in a
civil suit. The guy shot pets when they wondered onto his property.
He definitely had mental problems.
Gary
bball
<ma...@NOHAM.otford.kent.btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <slrn9qfmlu.4...@green.home.org>, bball wrote:
>>On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 14:38:29 -0400, Collie Entragion <> wrote:
>>>On 18 Sep 2001 01:13:12 GMT, billy...@home.org (bball) wrote:
[snip]
>>MPAA, Adobe, commercial software, the P&TO, and bottom-feeders...
[snip]
>Bottom feeders? (I understand the rest).
lawyers, also known as legal pimps, land sharks, law whores, and generally
worthless pimples on the ass of the world...
Geoff Lane
prevent bad PR by enforcing product name trademark conditions. See
http://www.itworld.com/AppDev/136/IWD010417opfoster/
And there is the recent, "don't use MS compilers to create viral
copyright'ed programs" conditions.
It's a general problem - not so long ago a battery company got very pissed
when a comparison chart was put up showing that their batteries had worse
lifetimes than other makers. It's difficult to warn people about poor
products if the company lawyers decide to threaten you if you use the
trademarked product name without permission.
--
/\ Geoff. Lane. /\ Manchester Computing /\ Manchester /\ M13 9PL /\ England /\
Multitasking causes schizophrenia..
John Saunders
news:nmhco9...@twirl.mcc.ac.uk...
> This particular example may/may not be real but MS really does try to
> prevent bad PR by enforcing product name trademark conditions. See
> http://www.itworld.com/AppDev/136/IWD010417opfoster/
From the original article referenced in the above:
"Microsoft, and countless other vendors with the same restriction, are
enforcing it while debate rages as to whether the restriction protects
consumers from bad data or protect vendors from bad test results. "
The "countless other vendors" includes Oracle and Network Associates, Inc.
> And there is the recent, "don't use MS compilers to create viral
> copyright'ed programs" conditions.
Details, please?
--
John Saunders
j...@ma.ultranet.com
Mark Kent
Aha. :-))))
Jim Richardson
<j...@ma.ultranet.com> wrote:
> "Geoff Lane" <zza...@twirl.mcc.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:nmhco9...@twirl.mcc.ac.uk...
>> This particular example may/may not be real but MS really does try to
>> prevent bad PR by enforcing product name trademark conditions. See
>> http://www.itworld.com/AppDev/136/IWD010417opfoster/
>
> From the original article referenced in the above:
>
> "Microsoft, and countless other vendors with the same restriction, are
> enforcing it while debate rages as to whether the restriction protects
> consumers from bad data or protect vendors from bad test results. "
>
> The "countless other vendors" includes Oracle and Network Associates,
> Inc.
so it's okay that M$ does it, if there are others that do it too? Lame
john, it's either wrong or it is not, numbers of offenders are irrelevent.
>> And there is the recent, "don't use MS compilers to create viral
>> copyright'ed programs" conditions.
>
> Details, please?
Check cola for the threads re: M$ licencing of .net componants IIRC
ISTR that the claim by the M$ apologists was that using thier bits in
GPL code would somehow cause them to have to GPL the bits... Many (not
all,. but many) M$ apologists have a very poor understanding of free and
open source licences, especially the GPL. Why, some of them, even
believe that because a company drops support for a GPL product, (like,
say broadcast 2000 for example) that it means that said product is no
longer available. Laughable I know John, but that's what some seem to think.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and content with life.
http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because in a house without windows, who needs gates?
John Saunders
news:r6rq7.21303$QK.18...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
> In article <9oco6k$md4$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "John Saunders"
> <j...@ma.ultranet.com> wrote:
>
> > "Geoff Lane" <zza...@twirl.mcc.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > news:nmhco9...@twirl.mcc.ac.uk...
> >> This particular example may/may not be real but MS really does try to
> >> prevent bad PR by enforcing product name trademark conditions. See
> >> http://www.itworld.com/AppDev/136/IWD010417opfoster/
> >
> > From the original article referenced in the above:
> >
> > "Microsoft, and countless other vendors with the same restriction, are
> > enforcing it while debate rages as to whether the restriction protects
> > consumers from bad data or protect vendors from bad test results. "
> >
> > The "countless other vendors" includes Oracle and Network Associates,
> > Inc.
>
>
> so it's okay that M$ does it, if there are others that do it too? Lame
> john, it's either wrong or it is not, numbers of offenders are irrelevent.
If "countless others" do it, then perhaps it's not wrong, but just seems
wrong to you since you didn't know about it before.
> >> And there is the recent, "don't use MS compilers to create viral
> >> copyright'ed programs" conditions.
> >
> > Details, please?
>
>
> Check cola for the threads re: M$ licencing of .net componants IIRC
> ISTR that the claim by the M$ apologists was that using thier bits in
> GPL code would somehow cause them to have to GPL the bits... Many (not
> all,. but many) M$ apologists have a very poor understanding of free and
> open source licences, especially the GPL. Why, some of them, even
> believe that because a company drops support for a GPL product, (like,
> say broadcast 2000 for example) that it means that said product is no
> longer available. Laughable I know John, but that's what some seem to
think.
I just did a Google search and couldn't find those threads. Can you give me
a subject or message ID, or a date?
--
John Saunders
j...@ma.ultranet.com
Ian Pegel
> In article <PNYp7.24515$x84.6...@ruti.visi.com>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <er...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>> "Gary Hallock" <gha...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:3ba7f...@news3.prserv.net...
>>> In article <59Rp7.24315$x84.6...@ruti.visi.com>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
>>> <er...@visi.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> > Not true at all. Again, the first ammendment talks only about
>>> > congress making laws to abridge the freedom of speech.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> So you honestly believe that such a license would stand up in court?
>>> What if I have a monoply on pencils. What if I tell you what you can
>>> and can not write with one of my pencils?
<S N I P>
You got him with the pencil monopoly bit. Notice he could not answer
that. Nice one!
Ian
Tim Smith
>> And there is the recent, "don't use MS compilers to create viral
>> copyright'ed programs" conditions.
>
>Details, please?
What he's thinking of is some recent Microsoft SDK (mobile internet)
whose license said you couldn't use it to create GPL'ed programs or
use GPL'ed tools with it to create your programs. (Actually, GPL'ed
and several other licenses were included).
You can see the license by going to this page and clicking "download".
Here is the relevant part:
"(c) Open Source. Recipient’s license rights to the Software are
conditioned upon Recipient (i) not distributing such Software, in
whole or in part, in conjunction with Potentially Viral Software (as
defined below); and (ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g.
tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in
whole or in part. For purposes of the foregoing, “Potentially Viral
Software” means software which is licensed pursuant to terms that: (x)
create, or purport to create, obligations for Microsoft with respect
to the Software or (y) grant, or purport to grant, to any third party
any rights to or immunities under Microsoft’s intellectual property or
proprietary rights in the Software. By way of example but not
limitation of the foregoing, Recipient shall not distribute the
Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with any Publicly
Available Software. “Publicly Available Software” means each of (i)
any software that contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole or
in part) from, any software that is distributed as free software, open
source software (e.g. Linux) or similar licensing or distribution
models; and (ii) any software that requires as a condition of use,
modification and/or distribution of such software that other software
distributed with such software (A) be disclosed or distributed in
source code form; (B) be licensed for the purpose of making derivative
works; or (C) be redistributable at no charge. Publicly Available
Software includes, without limitation, software licensed or
distributed under any of the following licenses or distribution
models, or licenses or distribution models similar to any of the
following: (A) GNU’s General Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library
GPL (LGPL), (B) The Artistic License (e.g., PERL), (C) the Mozilla
Public License, (D) the Netscape Public License, (E) the Sun Community
Source License (SCSL), and (F) the Sun Industry Standards License
(SISL)."
--Tim Smith
John Saunders
news:9D40DBEEB36DF5B0.4293E609...@lp.airnews.net...
> "John Saunders" <j...@ma.ultranet.com> wrote:
> >> And there is the recent, "don't use MS compilers to create viral
> >> copyright'ed programs" conditions.
> >
> >Details, please?
>
> What he's thinking of is some recent Microsoft SDK (mobile internet)
> whose license said you couldn't use it to create GPL'ed programs or
> use GPL'ed tools with it to create your programs. (Actually, GPL'ed
> and several other licenses were included).
>
> You can see the license by going to this page and clicking "download".
>
>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/default.asp?URL=/code/sample.asp?url=/ms
dn-files/027/001/516/msdncompositedoc.xml
>
Thanks, Tim,
I note that none of this has anything to do with compilers.
--
John Saunders
j...@ma.ultranet.com
bball
source in comments as a GPL'd program?
:-)
Erik Funkenbusch
which have a GPL license, it says you can't use tools which
> create, or purport to create, obligations for Microsoft with respect
> to the Software or (y) grant, or purport to grant, to any third party
> any rights to or immunities under Microsoft's intellectual property or
> proprietary rights in the Software.
For instance, Borland's Kylix Open Edition license forces you to GPL
anything you develop with it. If you use the Mobile SDK with that, you'd
need GPL MS's toolkit (which you can't legally do, which is exactly what MS
is saying).
"Tim Smith" <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
news:9D40DBEEB36DF5B0.4293E609...@lp.airnews.net...
Tim Smith
>The wording of license is quite clear. It doesn't say you can't use tools
>which have a GPL license, it says you can't use tools which
>
>> create, or purport to create, obligations for Microsoft with respect
>> to the Software or (y) grant, or purport to grant, to any third party
>> any rights to or immunities under Microsoft's intellectual property or
>> proprietary rights in the Software.
>
>For instance, Borland's Kylix Open Edition license forces you to GPL
>anything you develop with it. If you use the Mobile SDK with that, you'd
>need GPL MS's toolkit (which you can't legally do, which is exactly what MS
>is saying).
It may be "quite clear" to you, but it isn't to me (I guess that's
what I get for having gone to law school :-)). So, let's take this
thing apart and see what we've got.
>> "(c) Open Source. Recipient's license rights to the Software are
>> conditioned upon Recipient
>> (i) not distributing such Software, in
>> whole or in part, in conjunction with Potentially Viral Software (as
>> defined below)
>> and (ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g.
>> tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in
>> whole or in part.
OK. Clear so far. Can't distribute with PVS or use PVS to develop.
Right.
>> For purposes of the foregoing, "Potentially Viral
>> Software" means software which is licensed pursuant to terms that:
>> (x) create, or purport to create, obligations for Microsoft with respect
>> to the Software
>> or (y) grant, or purport to grant, to any third party
>> any rights to or immunities under Microsoft's intellectual property or
>> proprietary rights in the Software.
OK, still clear. GPL is not PVS under the above wording, BTW. If I
combine Microsoft software and GPL'ed software and distribute it, GPL
does not create, or purport to create, an obligation on Microsoft's
part. It only creates an obligation on my part (which I won't be able
to satisfy, so I'm opening myself up for trouble).
(OK, one thing is not clear to me at this point. Where the heck did
they get "(x)" and "(y)". They format things really weird!)
>> By way of example but not
>> limitation of the foregoing, Recipient shall not distribute the
>> Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with any Publicly
>> Available Software.
Now we get very unclear. They say that the limitation on distributing
with PVS includes distributing with PAS. The implication here is that
all PAS is PVS. Now we need to figure out what is PAS.
>> "Publicly Available Software" means each of
>> (i) any software that contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole or
>> in part) from, any software that is distributed as free software, open
>> source software (e.g. Linux) or similar licensing or distribution
>> models;
>> and (ii) any software that requires as a condition of use,
>> modification and/or distribution of such software that other software
>> distributed with such software (A) be disclosed or distributed in
>> source code form; (B) be licensed for the purpose of making derivative
>> works; or (C) be redistributable at no charge.
They seem to be saying PAS is software that satisfies both (i) and
(ii) in the above paragraph (although they might mean that PAS is
software that satisfies at least one of the above conditions...their
odd wording makes it hard for me to tell). Depending on exactly how
you read this, PAS may or may not include all GPL'ed software.
>> Publicly Available
>> Software includes, without limitation, software licensed or
>> distributed under any of the following licenses or distribution
>> models, or licenses or distribution models similar to any of the
>> following: (A) GNU's General Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library
>> GPL (LGPL), (B) The Artistic License (e.g., PERL), (C) the Mozilla
>> Public License, (D) the Netscape Public License, (E) the Sun Community
>> Source License (SCSL), and (F) the Sun Industry Standards License
>> (SISL)."
We now see how Microsoft reads it: Microsoft thinks all GPL'ed
software *is* PAS.
Since they also think that the license says that all PAS is PVS, this
means they think the license says you can't use GPL'ed tools with
their software from this SDK, nor can you distribute the software from
the SDK with GPL'ed tools.
--Tim Smith
Erik Funkenbusch
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <er...@visi.com> wrote:
> >The wording of license is quite clear. It doesn't say you can't use
tools
> >which have a GPL license, it says you can't use tools which
> >
> >> create, or purport to create, obligations for Microsoft with respect
> >> to the Software or (y) grant, or purport to grant, to any third party
> >> any rights to or immunities under Microsoft's intellectual property or
> >> proprietary rights in the Software.
> >
> >For instance, Borland's Kylix Open Edition license forces you to GPL
> >anything you develop with it. If you use the Mobile SDK with that, you'd
> >need GPL MS's toolkit (which you can't legally do, which is exactly what
MS
> >is saying).
>
> It may be "quite clear" to you, but it isn't to me (I guess that's
> what I get for having gone to law school :-)). So, let's take this
> thing apart and see what we've got.
Ok.
> >> "(c) Open Source. Recipient's license rights to the Software are
> >> conditioned upon Recipient
> >> (i) not distributing such Software, in
> >> whole or in part, in conjunction with Potentially Viral Software (as
> >> defined below)
> >> and (ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g.
> >> tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in
> >> whole or in part.
>
> OK. Clear so far. Can't distribute with PVS or use PVS to develop.
> Right.
Yup.
> >> For purposes of the foregoing, "Potentially Viral
> >> Software" means software which is licensed pursuant to terms that:
> >> (x) create, or purport to create, obligations for Microsoft with
respect
> >> to the Software
> >> or (y) grant, or purport to grant, to any third party
> >> any rights to or immunities under Microsoft's intellectual property or
> >> proprietary rights in the Software.
>
> OK, still clear. GPL is not PVS under the above wording, BTW. If I
> combine Microsoft software and GPL'ed software and distribute it, GPL
> does not create, or purport to create, an obligation on Microsoft's
> part. It only creates an obligation on my part (which I won't be able
> to satisfy, so I'm opening myself up for trouble).
I agree.
> (OK, one thing is not clear to me at this point. Where the heck did
> they get "(x)" and "(y)". They format things really weird!)
<shrug> Programmers variables ;)
> >> By way of example but not
> >> limitation of the foregoing, Recipient shall not distribute the
> >> Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with any Publicly
> >> Available Software.
>
> Now we get very unclear. They say that the limitation on distributing
> with PVS includes distributing with PAS. The implication here is that
> all PAS is PVS. Now we need to figure out what is PAS.
No, they're saying that if you distribute the software with PAS, that's a
violation. They're not saying that the use of PAS tools with the software
is a violation.
> >> "Publicly Available Software" means each of
> >> (i) any software that contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole
or
> >> in part) from, any software that is distributed as free software, open
> >> source software (e.g. Linux) or similar licensing or distribution
> >> models;
> >> and (ii) any software that requires as a condition of use,
> >> modification and/or distribution of such software that other software
> >> distributed with such software (A) be disclosed or distributed in
> >> source code form; (B) be licensed for the purpose of making derivative
> >> works; or (C) be redistributable at no charge.
>
> They seem to be saying PAS is software that satisfies both (i) and
> (ii) in the above paragraph (although they might mean that PAS is
> software that satisfies at least one of the above conditions...their
> odd wording makes it hard for me to tell). Depending on exactly how
> you read this, PAS may or may not include all GPL'ed software.
It most likely does include GPL'ed software.
> >> Publicly Available
> >> Software includes, without limitation, software licensed or
> >> distributed under any of the following licenses or distribution
> >> models, or licenses or distribution models similar to any of the
> >> following: (A) GNU's General Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library
> >> GPL (LGPL), (B) The Artistic License (e.g., PERL), (C) the Mozilla
> >> Public License, (D) the Netscape Public License, (E) the Sun Community
> >> Source License (SCSL), and (F) the Sun Industry Standards License
> >> (SISL)."
>
> We now see how Microsoft reads it: Microsoft thinks all GPL'ed
> software *is* PAS.
Yes.
> Since they also think that the license says that all PAS is PVS, this
> means they think the license says you can't use GPL'ed tools with
> their software from this SDK, nor can you distribute the software from
> the SDK with GPL'ed tools.
No, the license does not say that. Your logic cog jumped a tooth when you
tried to connect PVS with PAS (they wouldn't have made a distinction if they
were the same). MS forbids you from distributing any of the contents of the
SDK with software that requires you to license any software that is
distributed with it under a difference license (this is obvious, but MS is
explicitly stating that you can't do this). They also disallow the use of
the SDK with software which imposes obligations, or purports to impose
obligations to relicense software (such as Borland's Kylix Open Edition
license).
Obviously if someone compiles MS's code into their GPL'd application, they
have no legal right to relicense the work under the GPL. MS is stating
explicity that you can't do this, rather than expecting that people will
figure that out on their own.
Tim Smith
>> >> By way of example but not
>> >> limitation of the foregoing, Recipient shall not distribute the
>> >> Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with any Publicly
>> >> Available Software.
I commented:
>> Now we get very unclear. They say that the limitation on distributing
>> with PVS includes distributing with PAS. The implication here is that
>> all PAS is PVS. Now we need to figure out what is PAS.
>
"Erik Funkenbusch" <er...@visi.com> responded:
>No, they're saying that if you distribute the software with PAS, that's a
>violation. They're not saying that the use of PAS tools with the software
>is a violation.
Notice that this is offered in the license as an example of how the
limitations of the previous terms apply--it is not adding an
additional limitation. Those terms say no distributing with PVS and
no developing with PVS tools. They say nothing about PAS.
If the example is correct, and distribution with PAS is not allowed,
it has to be because PAS is a subset of PVS, because this limitation
of distribution has to come from the term that says no distribution
with PVS.
If PAS counts as PVS for the "no distribution with PVS" term, I don't
see why it would not also count in the "no development with PVS" term.
Whether or not this license actually prohibits development with PAS
tools, I think I've made my case that the license is not clear.
--Tim Smith
Erik Funkenbusch
> Microsoft wrote in their license:
> >> >> By way of example but not
> >> >> limitation of the foregoing, Recipient shall not distribute the
> >> >> Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with any Publicly
> >> >> Available Software.
>
> I commented:
> >> Now we get very unclear. They say that the limitation on distributing
> >> with PVS includes distributing with PAS. The implication here is that
> >> all PAS is PVS. Now we need to figure out what is PAS.
> >
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <er...@visi.com> responded:
> >No, they're saying that if you distribute the software with PAS, that's a
> >violation. They're not saying that the use of PAS tools with the
software
> >is a violation.
>
> Notice that this is offered in the license as an example of how the
> limitations of the previous terms apply--it is not adding an
> additional limitation. Those terms say no distributing with PVS and
> no developing with PVS tools. They say nothing about PAS.
Huh? It says something quite specifically about PAS. No distributing of
the software with PAS.
> If the example is correct, and distribution with PAS is not allowed,
> it has to be because PAS is a subset of PVS, because this limitation
> of distribution has to come from the term that says no distribution
> with PVS.
No, they're saying that PAS software is software which requires that any
other software used with it has some kind of obligation. Perhaps PAS is not
the best term to use. According to the license, PAS software is software
that is (in part) "any software that requires as a condition of use,
modification and/or distribution of such software that other software
distributed with such software "
In other words, any license wich REQUIRES you to ship MS's software with the
application you develop is not allowed. The difference between PVS and PAS
is that PAS doesn't have to require relicensing, just that software be
shipped with it.
> If PAS counts as PVS for the "no distribution with PVS" term, I don't
> see why it would not also count in the "no development with PVS" term.
No, PAS and PVS are two different things.
> Whether or not this license actually prohibits development with PAS
> tools, I think I've made my case that the license is not clear.
There is no doubt that it's a confusing license, but it really doesn't say
what you are trying to claim it does.
Tim Smith
>> Microsoft wrote in their license:
>> >> >> By way of example but not
>> >> >> limitation of the foregoing, Recipient shall not distribute the
>> >> >> Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with any Publicly
>> >> >> Available Software.
>>
>> I commented:
>> >> Now we get very unclear. They say that the limitation on distributing
>> >> with PVS includes distributing with PAS. The implication here is that
>> >> all PAS is PVS. Now we need to figure out what is PAS.
>> >
>> "Erik Funkenbusch" <er...@visi.com> responded:
>> >No, they're saying that if you distribute the software with PAS, that's a
>> >violation. They're not saying that the use of PAS tools with the
>software
>> >is a violation.
>>
>> Notice that this is offered in the license as an example of how the
>> limitations of the previous terms apply--it is not adding an
>> additional limitation. Those terms say no distributing with PVS and
>> no developing with PVS tools. They say nothing about PAS.
>
>Huh? It says something quite specifically about PAS. No distributing of
>the software with PAS.
But notice that it says "By way of example but not limitation of the
foregoing[...]". That means that the restriction in the example (no
distribution with PAS) is an example of applying the restriction
against distribution with PVS. You should be able to delete the
example without changing the meaning of the license.
You are reading it as if they said "In addition to the foregoing,
Recipient shall not distribute...with any Publicly Available
Software".
There are three ways to interpret this license:
1. The example is not an example, but rather is giving an additional
restriction. If this is the meaning, then the result is no
distribution or development with PVS, no distribution with PAS but
development with PAS is OK.
2. The example is wrong. If this is the meaning, then no distribution
or development with PVS. Distribution and development with PAS is OK,
as long as that PAS is not also PVS.
3. The example is right. This can only be so if all PAS is also PVS,
in which case no development or distribution with PVS and no
development or distribution with PAS.
--Tim Smith
Jim Richardson
So, If I understand you correctly, would it be accurate to say that your
interpretation of the above bit of legal word mangling, is that you
can't use Emacs to develop the software?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
Sundial Services
huge public relations problem with regards to its general-media
services, it should not attempt to solve those problems with useless
verbage in its EULA.
In addition to making them sound stupid, this kind of nonsense could
jeopardize other parts of the EULA in which it is contained. EULAs are
not very enforceable in the best of times, beyond what is already
provided-for in copyright law. This provision has nothing to do with
the intended purpose of an End-User License Agreement.
Microsoft has a lot of public-relations fires that it needs to put out.
This kind of B.S. isn't helping anyone. (Except maybe Linux.) ;-)
If Microsoft has forgotten how to -compete- against a real competitor,
then it badly needs to learn how. Because it has a very serious and
very powerful competitor now ... not just Linux, but Apple (OS/X) as
well. This is not the time to perpetuate any part of an already-damaged
public image.
John Saunders wrote:
>
> "Gary Hallock" <gha...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:3ba6b...@news3.prserv.net...
> > In article <slrn9qdciu.u...@green.home.org>, "bball"
> > <billy...@home.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On 17 Sep 2001 20:07:59 -0600, Craig Kelley <i...@inconnu.isu.edu> wrote:
> > >>billy...@home.org (bball) writes:
> > >>
> > >>> in yet another slap-in-the-face to its mindless customers and idiot
> > >>> users, M$ now has this in its Front Page 2002 license agreement:
> > >>>
> > >>> "You may not use the Software in connection with any site that
> > >>> disparages
> > >>> Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services..."
> > >>>
> > >>> InfoWorld, pg. 70, 9/17/2001, issue #38
> > >>
> > >>Please provide a link proving that statement; I don't believe even
> > >>Microsoft could be so arrogant.
> > >
> > > i have the hard copy of InfoWorld in my hand (got it via U.S. Snail
> > > today)... i've provided the page number, date, and issue number... how
> > > much more specific can i be? i haven't researched it on-line, but all
> > > you have to do is read Ed Foster's column...
> > >
> > > if this is a malicious false fact printed by InfoWorld, then i retract
> > > my statement and will eat the paper on which the paragraph is printed...
> > >
> >
> > Here's the link:
> >
> > http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/01/09/17/010917opfoster.xml
> >
> > This is insane as well as totally illegal. Could MS lawyers really be
> > this stupid? I've often wondered if clearly illegal sections in a
> > license invalidate the entire license. Any lawyers out there?
>
> This loser Foster should be sued for libel. If an alert reader caught that
> in the EULA, surely Foster should have himself looked at the EULA before
> publishing his article.
>
> Like I've said before, it's not in the EULA on my machine. If anyone finds
> that in their EULA, please post chapter and verse.
> --
> John Saunders
> j...@ma.ultranet.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sundial Services :: Scottsdale, AZ (USA)
mailto:in...@sundialservices.com (PGP public key available.)