Python on Windows soon forbidden by Micro$oft?
Eric Brunel
Found the following link on comp.lang.tcl. A bit long, but worth reading...
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=3B40A4A7.6E39BD%40brad-aisa.com&rnum=1
Regards,
- eric -
Hans Nowak
It's not April 1st yet...
--
Hans (base64.decodestring('d3VybXlAZWFydGhsaW5rLm5ldA=='))
# decode for email address ;-)
The Pythonic Quarter:: http://www.awaretek.com/nowak/
Eric Brunel
> It's not April 1st yet...
Considering Brad's article was posted on 2001-07-02, it certainly wasn't at
that time... ;-)
Can anyone using a recent version of Microsoft development tools confirm
whether it's a hoax or not? If it isn't, this is bad news...
- eric -
Hans Nowak
It sure smells like a hoax. I mean, really:
"""Microsoft has only been able to achieve this position of
near hegemony on the implicit premise that its products and tools
would always remain open and unrestricted in their usage. If
Microsoft had ever tried to thwart its competition by legally or
technologically preventing competitive software from running on
their systems or being built with their tools, then they would
have been unlikely to have retained customers or to have grown so
dominant."""
"Open and unrestricted"? It sure seems ludicrous to see these
words in the same sentence with "Microsoft".
Tim Hammerquist
> Hans Nowak wrote:
>> It's not April 1st yet...
It's not a joke. In fact, it's been discussed several times in this NG.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=slrn9uvnid.pe3.tim%40vegeta.ath.cx
> Can anyone using a recent version of Microsoft development tools
> confirm whether it's a hoax or not?
Yup. I don't use the software, but MS still has the EULA on their site.
Here's the link... still good after these several months.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/Downloads/eula_mit.htm
> If it isn't, this is bad news...
AFAIK, this is only on this (and maybe a few other packages of)
software. I'd be interested to see if Microsoft tries this again, what
with their pseudo-victory and several more pending lawsuits...
...which reminds me...
* off to http://userfriendly.org/ * ;)
Tim Hammerquist
--
No prisoner's dilemma here. Over the long term, symbiosis is more
useful than parasitism. More fun, too. Ask any mitochondria.
-- Larry Wall in <1997051020...@wall.org>
Tim Hammerquist
[ snip ]
> It sure smells like a hoax. I mean, really:
>
>
> "Open and unrestricted"? It sure seems ludicrous to see these
> words in the same sentence with "Microsoft".
Didn't you know? Microsoft invented Open Source! ;)
Tim Hammerquist
--
Watch my captor grow old and die. No satisfaction. Still here.
-- Morpheus, The Sandman
Tim Hammerquist
> Hans Nowak <wu...@earthlink.net> graced us by uttering:
> [ snip ]
>> It sure smells like a hoax. I mean, really:
>>
> [ snip ]
>>
>> "Open and unrestricted"? It sure seems ludicrous to see these
>> words in the same sentence with "Microsoft".
>
> Didn't you know? Microsoft invented Open Source! ;)
How 'bout a link:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/22749.html
Tim Hammerquist
--
: Let's say I have a perl object in an OO database.
Let's not.
-- Larry Wall in <1999040919...@kiev.wall.org>
Gonçalo Rodrigues
It does not surprise me at all, it's in line with Microsoft's general
policy up to date.
Of Microsoft products in general, the best I have to say is repeat Dr.
Samuel Johnson's quip to an author,
"Your manuscript is both good and original; but the parts that are good
are not original, and the parts that are original are not good."
Peter Hansen
>
> Hans Nowak <wu...@earthlink.net> graced us by uttering:
> [ snip ]
> > It sure smells like a hoax. I mean, really:
> >
> [ snip ]
> >
> > "Open and unrestricted"? It sure seems ludicrous to see these
> > words in the same sentence with "Microsoft".
>
> Didn't you know? Microsoft invented Open Source! ;)
No, that was Al Gore!
Boris^2
Hans Nowak wrote:
> Eric Brunel wrote:
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>Found the following link on comp.lang.tcl. A bit long, but worth reading...
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=3B40A4A7.6E39BD%40brad-aisa.com&rnum=1
>>
>
> It's not April 1st yet...
What sounds really like April 1st is M$ naming open source software
(rather than, eg, Outlook or Windows) "potentially viral software".
Cheers,
Boris Borcic
Andrew Koenig
Eric> Found the following link on comp.lang.tcl. A bit long, but worth reading...
Eric> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=3B40A4A7.6E39BD%40brad-aisa.com&rnum=1
I must say that the words of the license agreement do not seem to me
to have the effect that the article claims that they have.
Rather, it seems to me that Microsoft is saying that they will not
allow their products to be used in any way that might potentially
compel Microsoft to disclose any of their own source code.
--
Andrew Koenig, a...@research.att.com, http://www.research.att.com/info/ark
Grant Edwards
> Tim Hammerquist wrote:
>
>> Didn't you know? Microsoft invented Open Source! ;)
>
> No, that was Al Gore!
Ya know, I've actually read the transcript of that interview.
He never claimed to have invented the Internet, only to have
been responsible for funding it.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Of course, you
at UNDERSTAND about the PLAIDS
visi.com in the SPIN CYCLE --
phil hunt
>In article <3C8CAA83...@engcorp.com>, Peter Hansen wrote:
>> Tim Hammerquist wrote:
>>
>>> Didn't you know? Microsoft invented Open Source! ;)
>>
>> No, that was Al Gore!
>
>Ya know, I've actually read the transcript of that interview.
>He never claimed to have invented the Internet, only to have
>been responsible for funding it.
Of course Gore didn't invent the Internet. Everyone knows Microsoft
did that. They also invented the web browser, the symbolic link, and
robust multi-tasking operating systems.
--
<"><"><"> Philip Hunt <ph...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk> <"><"><">
"I would guess that he really believes whatever is politically
advantageous for him to believe."
-- Alison Brooks, referring to Michael
Portillo, on soc.history.what-if
Henrik Motakef
> What sounds really like April 1st is M$ naming open source software
> (rather than, eg, Outlook or Windows) "potentially viral software".
Don't make them worse than they are.
From Microsofts "Important Macro Virus tips" for Office on the Mac:
Q: Will the virus [Melissa] impact my Macintosh if I am using a
non-Microsoft e-mail program, such as Eudora?
A: If you are using an Macintosh e-mail program that is not from
Microsoft, we recommend checking with that particular company. But
most likely other e-mail programs like Eudora are not _designed to
enable virus replication_.
<http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/office/2001/virus_alert.asp>
David Bolen
> Ya know, I've actually read the transcript of that interview.
> He never claimed to have invented the Internet, only to have
> been responsible for funding it.
Which, BTW, was more truth than not. When in Congress, Gore was very
important to the funding at the time (primarily, I believe, to NSF).
The whole "father of the internet" thing clearly got blown up a bit,
but for those of us working on the backbones at the time, he really
was a big guy in our camp.
--
-- David
--
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
\ David Bolen \ E-mail: db...@fitlinxx.com /
| FitLinxx, Inc. \ Phone: (203) 708-5192 |
/ 860 Canal Street, Stamford, CT 06902 \ Fax: (203) 316-5150 \
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Jeremy Bowers
> Rather, it seems to me that Microsoft is saying that they will not
> allow their products to be used in any way that might potentially
> compel Microsoft to disclose any of their own source code.
This is true. The FUD lies in the fact that this is a chimera. It does
not matter what *I* do with free software and Microsoft software.
Nothing I do can possibly compel Microsoft to do *anything*. Any
theoretical activity I may wish to do that might require the release of
Microsoft code is not *legal* for me to engage in, because it requires
rights I don't have. And even if I did engage in this activity, I woud
be in violation of the law, and MS would *still* be obligation free.
There is no way Microsoft does not know this. There is no way the
lawyer(s) writing this did not know that. The stated concerns are
absurd; thus, the only logical conclusion is that MS is trying to spread
the ***blatent*** falsehood that some user somewhere of your software
may strip you of your software rights.
I'm not an "MS Hater", but I call 'em like I see 'em.
Peter Hansen
>
> In article <3C8CAA83...@engcorp.com>, Peter Hansen wrote:
> > Tim Hammerquist wrote:
> >
> >> Didn't you know? Microsoft invented Open Source! ;)
> >
> > No, that was Al Gore!
>
> Ya know, I've actually read the transcript of that interview.
> He never claimed to have invented the Internet, only to have
> been responsible for funding it.
I hadn't read it either, but I remembered the words quoted as
"invented the information superhighway". Well, searching on Google
(of course :-) using search pattern:
http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22al+gore%22+information+superhighway+invented
turned up this:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,39301,00.html which
discusses how the use of the word "invented" was, well, invented,
but that Al really did say he "took the initiative in creating
the Internet".
Furthermore, in a speech he gave in 1994
(see http://artcontext.com/cal/97/superhig.txt), he claimed:
"Incidentally, when I first coined the phrase "information
superhighway" 15 years ago, I was not prepared for some of the
unusual images it would ultimately bring into our language.
"
Fascinating, really.
(Notes: I'm Canadian, but I like Al anyway, and the articles quoted
indicated that he really did play a significant role in bringing
into the world much of the infrastructure we are using right now.)
-Peter
phil hunt
>
>There is no way Microsoft does not know this.
Indeed so.
>There is no way the
>lawyer(s) writing this did not know that. The stated concerns are
>absurd; thus, the only logical conclusion is that MS is trying to spread
>the ***blatent*** falsehood that some user somewhere of your software
>may strip you of your software rights.
Lying to get money = fraud
I think MicroShit's directors and laywers should be banged up for a
few years.
rasm...@lanl.gov
On Tuesday, March 12, 2002, at 02:54 PM, phil hunt wrote:
>
> Lying to get money = fraud
>
> I think MicroShit's directors and laywers should be banged up for a
> few years.
Let me throw out a different interpretation on Microsoft's actions.
As I was reading Microsoft's license, I thought of it in relation to the
GPL.
Maybe Microsoft is just covering it's backside so that users of
their products won't use it in ways that will break the GPL.
After all, the GPL forbids linking GPL code with non GPL code, i.e.
MS libraries. At least I think so from reading the GPL FAQ
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html). For example, in answer to
I am writing free software that uses non-free libraries. What legal issues
come up if I use the GPL?
The FAQ states:
If the libraries that you link with falls within the following
exception in the GPL:
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not
include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or
binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on)
of
the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that
component itself accompanies the executable.
then you don't have to do anything special to use them. In other words,
if the libraries you
need come with major parts of a proprietary operating system, the GPL
says people can link
your program with them.
Since VC++ is not normally distributed with the operating system, I would
assume
that MS VC++ libraries are not compatible with GPL code.
Now I should rush to point out that I don't know this to be the reason
for Microsoft's license, I'm just wondering. Anyone more familiar with
the law in this area care to comment?
Craig
Gerhard Häring
>
> On Tuesday, March 12, 2002, at 02:54 PM, phil hunt wrote:
> >
> >
> >I think MicroShit's directors and laywers should be banged up for a
> >few years.
>
>
> As I was reading Microsoft's license, I thought of it in relation to
> the GPL.
> Maybe Microsoft is just covering it's backside so that users of their
I cannot imagine they'd waste a thought on wether their users break
other people's/companies licenses, because there's no way Microsoft
could get into trouble because of that.
So that only leaves that they're spreading FUD intentionally.
Btw. all EULUs contain something like: "To the maximum extent permitted
by applicable law [bla bla bla]". The reason is that often, their
requirements do not conform to some national laws. One example is
reverse-engineering binaries, which *is* legal in some countries (using
the retrieved information commercially is of course a different matter).
I don't know the legal term for this, but there are certain rights which
you cannot give away, even if you "agree" to in a contract.
Gerhard
--
This sig powered by Python!
Außentemperatur in München: 17.0 °C Wind: 2.8 m/s
jrc
Cliff Wells
Gerhard Häring wrote:
> Le 13/03/02 à 09:10, rasm...@lanl.gov écrivit:
> > On Tuesday, March 12, 2002, at 02:54 PM, phil hunt wrote:
> > As I was reading Microsoft's license, I thought of it in relation to
> > the GPL.
> > Maybe Microsoft is just covering it's backside so that users of their
> > products won't use it in ways that will break the GPL. [...]
>
> I cannot imagine they'd waste a thought on wether their users break
> other people's/companies licenses, because there's no way Microsoft
> could get into trouble because of that.
>
> So that only leaves that they're spreading FUD intentionally.
Not unlike the shouting at the end of their NT EULA's that warn against
using Java for applications that involve risk of life and limb. Frankly
I'd be far more concerned about using NT in those applications than whether
the app were written in Java. Imagine being in a coma for a year and the
hospital having to reboot your life-support once a week. That would take a
lot of the fun out of it.
As an aside, if I were on life-support, I'd rather have it run by a Gameboy
than a Windows box.
--
Cliff Wells, Software Engineer
Logiplex Corporation (www.logiplex.net)
(503) 978-6726 x308 (800) 735-0555 x308
Aahz
Cliff Wells <logiplex...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>As an aside, if I were on life-support, I'd rather have it run by a Gameboy
>than a Windows box.
May I use this quote as a .sig like this:
"...if I were on life-support, I'd rather have it run by a Gameboy than a
Windows box." --Cliff Wells, comp.lang.python, 3/13/2002
--
Aahz (aa...@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/
The way to build large Python applications is to componentize and
loosely-couple the hell out of everything.
Jeff Shannon
Andrew Koenig wrote:
> Rather, it seems to me that Microsoft is saying that they will not
> allow their products to be used in any way that might potentially
> compel Microsoft to disclose any of their own source code.
Right, but they then go on to say that, in order to prevent such compulsion for Microsoft,
that the users of the software may not use it with, or to produce, Open Source software.
(Or even distribute the code you produce with it, alongside a separate Open Source
product!) The idea that doing so would put any sort of obligation on Microsoft is
ludicrous, yet that is exactly the implied claim of the license terms. That, along with
the use of the blatantly inflammatory term "potentially viral software", is a clear
indication that this is a strong attempt by MS to frighten people away from Open Source. I
question whether these license terms could stand up in court, but even if it is eventually
ruled illegal, it can do a lot of harm before that point.
I'm not as fond of bashing MS products as some others, but their corporate policies scare
me.
Jeff Shannon
Technician/Programmer
Credit International
Mike Dean
> After all, the GPL forbids linking GPL code with non GPL code, i.e.
> MS libraries. At least I think so from reading the GPL FAQ
> (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html). For example, in answer to
>
> I am writing free software that uses non-free libraries. What legal issues
> come up if I use the GPL?
>
>
> Since VC++ is not normally distributed with the operating system, I would
> assume
> that MS VC++ libraries are not compatible with GPL code.
But the core MS VC++ libraries are distributed with Windows 98 and
higher, and are at least commonly available on virtually all Windows
systems (Unless a system is very old and isolated, it probably has some
version of msvcrt.dll on it, as well as mfc42.dll).
As I see it (though I'm no lawyer, let alone copyright law expert), the
restrictions become A., if the PythonLabs team upgrades to a newer
version of Visual C++, they can no longer distrubute updated runtimes
with Python, and B., people cannot use newer versions of Microsoft tools
to develop multi-language products involving Python or any other open
source software, and distribute runtimes with that (which basically
outlaws creating VB-Python combination programs). And one cannot use
open-source tools to build any part of an application that will have
Microsoft runtimes distributed with it.
But that's just my $.02 - correct me if I'm wrong on anything please!
-Mike
>
> Now I should rush to point out that I don't know this to be the reason
> for Microsoft's license, I'm just wondering. Anyone more familiar with
> the law in this area care to comment?
>
> Craig
>
>
>
Courageous
>> Rather, it seems to me that Microsoft is saying that they will not
>> allow their products to be used in any way that might potentially
>> compel Microsoft to disclose any of their own source code.
No one, other than Microsoft, can use Microsoft's products in
such a way as to compel Microsoft to disclose their source code.
They don't need a license for that, and there is no legal
ambiguity _what so ever_.
C//