|
|
| The NZ "Get the Facts" Style Report |
 |
|
Wednesday, March 01 2006 @ 10:13 PM EST
|
I've been getting so much email on this, I decided to drop what I was doing and quickly respond here. Slashdot has posted an article about a report to the New Zealand State Services Commission regarding FOSS: Gavo writes "Law firm Chapmann Tripp advises New Zealand State Services Commission that the New Zealand Government should be wary of using 'infectious' open source software. They claim 'While the use of open source software has many benefits, it brings with it a number of legal risks not posed by proprietary or commercial software.'" Here's the scoop, although I don't know if the New Zealand government is aware of it. Chapman Tripp works for Microsoft.
Here's the proof, if you don't mind a .doc file downloading on to your computer a page of copyright notices on Microsoft's behalf by the firm: COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Under Section 136 of the Copyright Act 1994
Copyright Holder: Microsoft Corporation
Date Accepted: 18 September 1998 (re-accepted 15 August 2003)
Date Expires: 7 August 2008
[list of works]...
Contacts:
The company for all inquiries on the notices is:
Attention: Justin Graham
Chapman Tripp Sheffield Young
[address, phone, fax]
They don't even hide it. They list Microsoft as a client on their site: Advising Microsoft Corporation on digital copyright, parallel importation and copyright enforcement issues, including submissions to the Ministry of Economic Development and the select committee. Might this be why Microsoft is now sending out "Get the Facts" style FUD to the New Zealand government? Open source software: briefing to the Minister of State Services - March 2003
4 March 2003
The State Services Commission provided a briefing to the Minister for State Services on the potential for the use of open source software within government, and any associated risks or limitations, in March 2003. As a result of the briefing, it was:
* noted that open source software is generally a viable alternative to commercial software, and that it is increasingly used in both the private and public sectors globally;
* noted that 'value for money' and 'fitness for purpose' principles should continue to underlie any software procurement decision made by government agencies; and
* agreed that government agencies, when acquiring, upgrading or relicensing software, be encouraged to assess open source alternatives (where these exist) and should choose based on cost, functionality, interoperability, and security; Hence the Microsoft effort to create antiFOSS FUD. As I always say, they have altogether too much money. Of course, the report is chock full of FUD. Here is one example: 5 A "strongly infectious" open source licence will infect any redistributed piece of software that contains or is derived from software licensed under it. It is generally very difficult to modify or integrate software licensed under a strongly infectious open source licence without the resulting product, when redistributed, becoming "open source" on the same terms as the original. The GPL is an example of a strongly infectious open source licence. At least the GPL allows you to use the code, modify it and redistribute at all. Let's think for a minute, something FUD purveyors hope you will never do. Suppose you redistribute modified Microsoft software instead. What will happen to you? That's right. They'll sue your pants off. So I'd say if FOSS is "infectious," Microsoft is flesh-eating bacteria.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 01 2006 @ 10:20 PM EST |
Well it is kind of infectious... I just can't seem to stop using it now. ;) I
started with a few gpl apps... then several... and boom the whole OS... ;)
sbans[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Pandemic! - Authored by: grouch on Wednesday, March 01 2006 @ 11:09 PM EST
- Poor soul... - Authored by: Mark Grosskopf on Wednesday, March 01 2006 @ 11:44 PM EST
- The NZ "Get the Facts" Style Report - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 12:35 AM EST
- Viral - Authored by: johan on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 01:33 AM EST
- Don't forget the article asks for feedback - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 03:19 AM EST
- Sure! We need to stop being defensive about this - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 04:10 AM EST
- Not infectious -- ADDICTIVE! - Authored by: PSaltyDS on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 08:02 AM EST
- ..Microsoft is flesh-eating bacteria.. - Authored by: Acrow Nimh on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 08:04 AM EST
- The NZ "Get the Facts" Style Report - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 12:47 PM EST
- My Windows box is infected... - Authored by: raynfala on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 03:36 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 01 2006 @ 10:27 PM EST |
> choose based on cost, functionality, interoperability, and security
I can see why MS don't want those criteria used -- they lose out to FOSS on at
least three of them (and any advantage they still have on the fourth is rapidly
eroding).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 01 2006 @ 10:29 PM EST |
given that this is the new zealand government, notorious for getting rather
stuborn when foreign interests try and interfere with their affairs, i think
this will probably have precisely the opposite to the desired effect[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: darksepulcher on Wednesday, March 01 2006 @ 10:36 PM EST |
So PJ can fix any little oopsies in the text, should there be any.
---
Had I but time--As this fell Sergeant, Death
Is strict in his arrest--O, I could tell you--
But let it be.
(Hamlet, Act V Scene 2)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Griffin3 on Wednesday, March 01 2006 @ 10:37 PM EST |
| Especially anyone who knows what the latest Supreme Court decisions mean ... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: so23 on Wednesday, March 01 2006 @ 10:51 PM EST |
NZ is a small place. The fact that Chapmann Tripp have worked for Microsoft is
less significant than you might think. There are probably very few large law
firms in the country with expertise in software licensing. Chapmann Tripp is
probably the largest of a handful at most, making it the obvious contender both
to advise the ministry, and to handle Microsoft's business in the country.
While I find the article quite unbalanced, particularly in the way it careless
throws around very loaded language, there isn't anything actually untrue in it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Likely to be coincidence - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 01 2006 @ 11:10 PM EST
- Um... - Authored by: Mecha on Wednesday, March 01 2006 @ 11:29 PM EST
- Yes there is - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 04:20 AM EST
- Likely to be coincidence - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 04:26 AM EST
- Likely to be coincidence - Authored by: darknase on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 08:07 AM EST
- When does intellectual dishonesty become untrue? - Authored by: Atticus on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 09:58 AM EST
- Likely to be coincidence - NOT - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 01:04 PM EST
- There apears to be a number of untruths - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 06:53 PM EST
- Likely to be coincidence - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 10:56 PM EST
- Not Likely! - Authored by: webweave on Friday, March 03 2006 @ 05:53 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: BC on Wednesday, March 01 2006 @ 10:51 PM EST |
Blah...Infectious Open Source. The mind boggles at how they try to use it as a
legitimate technical term.
How about a "Get the Truth" campaign.
Once you've switched to open source you're vaccinated against the real extend
and embrace scourge that's probably already infected you.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 01 2006 @ 10:54 PM EST |
Doesn't this date back to the same week as when SCO launched its suit against
IBM?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: star-dot-h on Wednesday, March 01 2006 @ 10:57 PM EST |
Actually, State Services Commission play an important in oversight and advising
other government agencies. So advice with their "stamp" is taken
seriously. A more complete analysis would be most welcome.
In fairness, they have been setting a reasonable lead when it comes to OSS
adoption.
---
Free software on every PC on every desk[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 01 2006 @ 11:02 PM EST |
"{The US Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that plaintiffs in a patent-tying
antitrust action under Section 1 of the Sherman Act must prove that the
defendant has market power as part of its affirmative case [Illinois Tool Works
v. Independent Ink]"
What does this mean for us non legal folks?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 01 2006 @ 11:06 PM EST |
"(a) the original software if re-distributed
(b) any modification of the original software if redistributed
(c) software containing or integrated with the original software, if
redistributed
(d) software used in conjunction with the original software to provide a web
based service."
A and B both apply just as much to MS' licensing as anyone else. B and C are
both highly subjective to the conditions.
But what I don't get is why governments are afraid of legal issues in software
when a) they make the laws for their land, and b) some of the most likely
threats for any legal issues are not neccessarily set up in their country. If
there wass a world government, that would be one thing, but it is likely at
least a few years off. The government can't be sued by an entity outside of
their country, and when the entity has set up a camp in in their country, the
issue would depend on the laws regarding who can sue the government and when.
But the government can refuse to acknowledge a patent on the basis as they
determine the patent never should have been issued in the locality it was under
their laws.
MS needs broken up when they continually threaten governments.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, March 01 2006 @ 11:12 PM EST |
If the government of NZ wants to fall for the Chapmann Tripp con job, the only
loser will the government of NZ. Given that NZ's trading partners, the PRC,
India, ASEAN are all pushing Open Source, the worst that happens is that NZ is
out of step with them - When I used to study judo, I would do my level best to
make sure that my victim would be out of step with me. If he was out of step,
then I would catch him flat footed and within half a second, he would be giving
the mat a big, wet, sloppy kiss.
---
Know your enemies well, because that's the only way you are going to defeat
them. And know your friends even better, just in case they become your enemies.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mobrien_12 on Wednesday, March 01 2006 @ 11:23 PM EST |
Is this a violation of ethics in New Zealand? It sounds like this law firm had
a clear conflict of interest here.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 01 2006 @ 11:25 PM EST |
| The FUD be down under too... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 01 2006 @ 11:48 PM EST |
There are no legal risks associated with using comercial software sold by SCO -
right?
Microsoft rigorously strives to avoid infringing other companies IP - right?
Oh, come off it! Sounds more like you are at risk with commercial stuff and
things like infectios DRM, roll up get your documents DRMed and then watch as
no-one can use them - yuck!
I hear Microsoft is distributing 1/2 million trial versions of Longwait err I
mean Longhorn errr I mean Vista. Are any GL members getting a copy? How about
doing some deep searching for other peoples IP, GREPS and so on?
Tufty
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 12:06 AM EST |
That the report is on - there is a link. I sent them a nice polite 3 paragraph
note stating that the report was full of errors an inaccuracies and it should be
pulled before New Zealand became a laughing stock. Because of the time
difference it's 3:00 PM there now, late in the working day, so it's possible
they've already read it.
I'll let everyone know what response I get if any.
---
Wayne
http://urbanterrorist.blogspot.com/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bruzie on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 12:36 AM EST |
As mentioned on slashdot, the report itself isn't really 'bad' - loaded terms
notwithstanding.
If you look at this briefing
paper on open source to the Minister of the State Services Commission, one
of the results was that government agencies are encouraged to assess open source
alternatives when acquiring, upgrading or relicensing software.
The State
Services Commission is the government's government. They dictate how all the
other public service government departments operate.
I've done work for
several NZ government departments including the SSC, and a lot of the time they
use OS server technologies. The SSC are effectively lawyers and they're not
going to change their policy based on this guide that Chapmann Tripp prepared.
Although I am a bit offended that my taxes were spent on this
'guide'. ---
Chris Brewer
"Mr Gandhi, what do you think of Western civilisation?"
"I think it would be a good idea." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 12:56 AM EST |
| I think this is a bit over-blown. I have done a lot of contract develpment work
for NZ government in the past few years. I have even done some for State
Services (SSC).
One thing I do know is that SSC is very supportive, and a
heavy user of FOSS (note the Plone web site) and is actively encouraging other
govt departments to adopt FOSS.
I doubt this report will really have much
influence at all.
-andy
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 02:05 AM EST |
By definition, the GPL IS viral. It states that if you write software that uses
GPL'd software then you must license under the GPL also. While this is of
concern to many corporations and which is why almost all popular software
libraries are not under GPL license (which is why the LGPL and other licenses
exist), why Microsoft (or its lawyers) would choose to point this out to a
government entity is beyond me. Government entities generally do not try to
make a profit off their software and would have very little problem with the
terms of the GPL.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I Agree... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 03:01 AM EST
- So What? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 03:33 AM EST
- I disagree... - Authored by: AndyC on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 03:34 AM EST
- So What? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 03:50 AM EST
- Bzzzzzzzt - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 04:20 AM EST
- Bzzzzzzzt - Authored by: luvr on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 05:25 AM EST
- No, you need NOT license - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 04:32 AM EST
- Definition of Viral - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 04:38 AM EST
- Not true - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 05:28 AM EST
- So What? - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 08:07 AM EST
- So What? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 01:02 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: IRJustman on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 03:51 AM EST |
This one is GOLDEN:
"They claim 'While the use of open source software has many benefits, it
brings with it a number of legal risks not posed by proprietary or commercial
software.'"
This from a software company who ROUTINELY steals (yes, I said
"steal") stuff for their products, then gets smacked for it. Let's
see what Stac, for example, has to say about "legal risks not posed by
proprietary or commercial software".
Then there's the software with Swiss-cheese-style security whose source code's
disclosure a Microsoft employee says may compromise national security.
Trustworthy Computing (Whose trust are they trying to earn anyway? Certainly
not ours.) has not measurably helped this situation at all.
It seems to me that Microsoft's products carry more legal liabilities than open
source software ever has.
--Ian, typing one-handed after having broken his left shoulder.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 03:57 AM EST |
Here it is in a nutshell...
If you want to save yourself the time, effort, and cost of building a software
application FROM SCRATCH then consider using GPLed software. You will be
standing on the shoulders of programming giants.
But know that if you choose to develop that software further and subsequently
distribute it OUTSIDE the legal entity that accepted the GPL, the price you pay
for this is allowing OTHERS to stand on YOUR shoulders, i.e. you let them use
your modified code to save themselves the time, effort, and cost of building
their own software application FROM SCRATCH -- JUST LIKE YOU DID! How anyone can
construe that approach as unfair is beyond my comprehension, because...
... if you don't want to allow the above then go ahead and BUILD YOUR SOFTWARE
FROM SCRATCH. It's your choice. What the FUDsters love doing is pretending that
you do not have this choice, that you are somehow 'forced' to accept the GPL.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 04:48 AM EST |
If a government comissions software to be written ... presumably to serve the
purposes for which is was elected ... then why on earth wouldn't it want to give
the source code out to the citizens whose taxes paid for it ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 08:00 AM EST |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if NZ has a Freedom of Information law, then any
code changes they commission must be open anyway. Exactly how could infectious
openness make any difference to them?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: imperial on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 08:02 AM EST |
I have been in correspondence with the editor of the Computerworld New Zealand
over an article written by a Mr Chris Bell that took a fairly deceptive, in my
view, slant against using FOSS.
I wrote to the editor listing a number or points where this article was
misleading, factually inaccurate or both. The editor replied (surprise) but told
me i had missed the point of the article which was to raise questions but not
answer them. I still maintained that wrong is wrong whatever the intent of the
article and apparently I am still missing the point.
He then offered to send me a copy of all of the articles in the series, so I can
judge for myself and I am eagerly awaiting them.
Mr Bell's article raised a number of issues that I will briefly summarise.
1. No warranty
2. Not used for 'mission critical' applications
3. GPL never tested in court
4. FOSS doesnt correspond to requirements specifications
5. Problems with lawsuits
Basically, the article could have been written by somebody from Microsoft as it
parroted the 'Get the Fud' campaign pretty closely. The deficiencies in this
article are pretty obvious and apparently it is part of a series aimed at CIOs
in New Zealand.
I wonder why so much action in NZ all of a sudden. Any Kiwis with their finger
on the pulse may be able to provide some suggestions.
When I get the rest of the articles I will post some more if anybody is
interested.
PJ if you want to see the emails and replies let me know and I will forward
them.
Tom[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 09:39 AM EST |
Guess I need a nic. (I wrote parent) To answer your question, my reading of
current DRM issues is that just about everyone is a violator of some DRM rule or
another just by listening or watching content; especially since the RIAA has
said ripping contents of a cd to play on a mp3 player is infringing use of their
content. :)
**********
Ivana B. Free[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brc on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 10:23 AM EST |
My thoughts are that Microsoft has been hit so many times over security and
virus issues that they are intentionally using the terms "infectious"
and "infected by", etc to create a false impression with the public
that FOSS software is just as likely to be "infected" as MS products,
without differentiating between the "infected by viruses and trojans"
that MS is plagued with vs using this as a licensing "issue" on FOSS.
It's also interesting that they so often play out the legal fiction of IP
infringement - has anyone ever made a list of lawsuits against FOSS projects for
IP infringement vs the number of IP/Copyright infringment cases against
proprietary software - I know MS gets sued over this often, but can't think of a
single successful case against FOSS...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 10:25 AM EST |
I posted this over at Slashdot, it got ignored. One of the primary issues this
is trying to address is for developers, NOT the ordinary user. Developing
proprietary applications for the Linux platform, or GPL'ed development tools,
does take precautions that aren't as much of a worry with proprietary
platforms.
The net result is that for developing proprietary software, there are issues
that don't exist in proprietary systems, as I tried to demonstrate in my post to
slashdot:
I work for a large corporation very friendly to open source. Still, we work with
just such guidelines in place, and more.
Let me give you a for-instance:
We develop proprietary design software that runs on unix, and port it to Linux.
Joe Developer makes an error with the libraries (accidentally statically links
against an LGPL'ed library, or links at all against a GPL'ed one). We share that
application with a company we have a partnership with, or a customer.
Guess what? We've just lost control of the license of our application. We can
now be forced to release the code (say, after the partnership disolves), and
can't prevent the partner from redistributing the application.
Of course, this isn't confined to Linux. What if GPL'ed or LGPL'ed libraries are
installed on Solaris, or Windows, or...
With proprietary software, this isn't an issue. Purchase of the
compiler/SDK/library generally takes care of the license issues, and mistakes
can generally be cleared up without releasing source code (maybe fines or
$BIGNUM royalty payments, but our code is still ours, and secret, at the end of
the day).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 11:43 AM EST |
| PJ wrote: Law firm Chapmann Tripp...... although I don't know if the New
Zealand government is aware of it. Chapman Tripp works for Microsoft.
Seems a disturbing trend for companies to use law firms as PR
firms.
Doesn't that violate some sort of ethical requirements on the profession?
It seems like the entire strategy is based on CEOs who are scared to death of
lawyers; so when MSFT fud comes from a lawyer or a law firm they panic a lot
more than when it comes from an ad agency.
It's kinda sad to see; but no
doubt it's effective. Any good way of countering that kind of FUD? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 03:07 PM EST |
noted that 'value for money' and 'fitness for purpose'
principles should continue to underlie any software procurement decision made by
government agencies;
Let's see what Microsoft have to say
about fitness for purpose, shall we? Looking at the EULA for XP Pro, here, we see
what?
MS offer a limited warranty (only listed for software sold in the
US / Canada, and I don't have an actual MS license to hand to see what the
European terms are) for 90 days (30 if you don't "activate"). This
covers:
Microsoft warrants that the Software will perform
substantially in accordance with the
accompanying materials for a period of
ninety (90) days from the date of receipt.
So, 90 days from
purchase. What about updates?
Any supplements or updates to
the Software, including without limitation, any (if any) service
packs or hot
fixes provided to you after the expiration of the ninety day Limited Warranty
period are not covered by any warranty or condition, express, implied or
statutory
Let's hope that MS don't foul up any updates, then.
Because if they do, you have no comeback. And they've never done that before,
have they? Back to the original warranty. What's your comeback if the OS
toasts your hardware, or your precious data, within 90 days of
purchase?
Microsoft’s and its
suppliers’ entire liability and
your exclusive remedy for any breach of this Limited Warranty or
for any other
breach of this EULA or for any other liability relating to the Software shall
be, at
Microsoft’s option from time to time exercised subject to applicable
law, (a) return of the
amount paid (if any) for the Software, or (b) repair or
replacement of the Software, that does not
meet this Limited Warranty and that
is returned to Microsoft with a copy of your receipt.
Now, that
could be fun. We could buy a copy of Windows, and insist that MS provide us
with an OS that is not susceptible to random virus and malware infections,
maybe? Oh, no, it seems not; not only "at Microsoft's option" above, but
also:
You
will receive the remedy elected by Microsoft without
charge, except that you are responsible for any expenses you may incur (e.g.
cost of shipping the Software to Microsoft). This Limited
Warranty is void if
failure of the Software has resulted from accident, abuse, misapplication,
abnormal use or a virus.
Happy happy joy. MS will decide what
they want to give you (hint: it's liable to be a refund), you get to pay for any
shipping or other costs you incur, and they explicitly exclude viruses from the
warranty anyway. This latter item, in of itself, is a massive giveaway; maybe
they should add "this product is liable to be infected by random and frequent
viruses" into the "accompanying materials", then they could do away with that
clause.
So, Windows is supposed to do what it says on the box, for 90
days, as long as you don't get a virus, or MS will give you your money back.
Once you've had it for 90 days, you're on your own.
Remember:
Microsoft and its suppliers provide the Software and
support services (if any)
AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and hereby disclaim all
other warranties and conditions,
whether express, implied or statutory,
including, but not limited to, any (if any) implied
warranties, duties or
conditions of merchantability, of fitness for a particular purpose, of
reliability or availability, of accuracy or completeness of responses, of
results, of
workmanlike effort, of lack of viruses, and of lack of negligence,
all with regard to the
Software, and the provision of or failure to provide
support or other services, information,
software, and related content through
the Software or otherwise arising out of the use of the
Software. ALSO, THERE
IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET
ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION,
CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR NON-
INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE
SOFTWARE.
So. No warranty of fitness for purpose. No warranty
of virus free distribution media. No warranty you won't get sued for using
it.
It's not the warranty of fitness for purpose that gets me, it's the
fact they explicitly mention viruses multiple times in the EULA that makes me
laugh. Also makes me happy to run OSX, Gentoo and OpenBSD boxes, and no
Windows.
Simon
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: darkonc on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 04:06 PM EST |
| I think that this report does bring up something very important -- you really
should understand the licenses that the software you use is under. The EULA that
Microsoft forces people to 'accept' is long and convoluted -- not meant for
human eyes. Nontheless, if even half of the people who use MS software
understood that license they would run screaming. Not unlike various groups in
history who have hunted, tortured and murdered countless minorities -- chanting
about how they are inhuman savages Microsoft's chants about GPL seem to be
designed around the horrors within their own license.
Under copyright law,
if you create a derivative of another person's work, 'your' derivative work is
subject to the control of the original author. This is true with both closed and
open source.
The difference is that, with closed source, you generally don't
even have the ability, much less the right to make derivative.
Microsoft's End User License Agreement, for example, explicitly denies you the
right to even examine the software that they want you to use to run your
computer. Modifying it, (even for internal uses) is likewise forbidden.
Redistributing it (which is what would trigger the requirements of the GPL)
would be considered outright illegal.
If you sign on to Microsoft's
so-called 'shared source' program, you still have restrictions. Some versions
of the Shared Source licenses are "look, don't touch", which is to say: You're
not allowed to actually produce modified versions of their code. Those that
do allow you to modify the source don't give you the freedom to
redistribute the source -- in fact, Microsoft's licenses are so viral that they
force you to hand over the copyright of your new code to Microsoft.
The restrictions of Microsoft's EULA contrast with the GPL which leaves you with
full ownership and control of your new code. If you make modifications to a
piece of GPL software and keep it within your organization, you have full
control. The GPL does not touch you. The GPL only requires you to do something
if you wish to redistribute the GPL code (or derivatives of it) to someone else.
At that point, the GPL simply requires that you also redistribute the same
rights and abilities that it gave to you. If that means that you must then
license (parts of) your new code under the GPL, then so be it.
If, however,
you extract your code from it's GPL parent, you have something that you
completely own and control. ---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching
the jewel within each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: darkonc on Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 06:20 PM EST |
| If Your Car Was Made by Microsoft
I sometimes wonder what your user license
would be like if your car was
made by Microsoft. This is my best attempt, using
the MS Windows XP Home
license as a template. Paragraph numbers are taken from the XP license. I'm
trying to do this in relatively plain english.
'Improvements' gratefully
accepted.
This would be found attached to the gas cap the first time you
tried to
fill up the tank.
This is a legal agreement. By removing this gas
cap, you signify your
acceptance of the attached license.
MotoSoft Vehicle
License
By filling the gas tank of this MotoSoft Nova vehicle you
automatically
agree to be bound by the terms
of this license. If you do not
agree to the terms of this license,
do not fill up your gas tank. Return your
vehicle to your MotoSoft
dealer immediately for instructions on how (and if) you
can get a
full refund.
1. You are granted the limited rights in this
agreement only if you
abide by the restrictions of this agreement.
1.2 You
must register your car with MotoSoft and provide us with the
information we deem
necessary to complete this registration. Once you do
this, you will receive a
'key' which allows long term use of this vehicle.
Your vehicle is designed
to test periodically to determine if you are
still allowed to use it. If at any
time, your compute (or MotoSoft)
decides that you are no longer authorized to
use this car, it may suddenly
malfunction. MotoSoft will not collect any
personally identifiable
information about you in this process.
1.3 If this
vehicle is designed to accept passengers, you are not allowed
have more than 5
passengers at any time. This restriction applies even
if you attach a trailer
or other extension.
1.4 The restriction in 1.3 does not apply to the use of
a remote control
driving device.
1.5 This agreement applies only to one
machine. If you wish to use a
second machine, then you must purchase a separate
license
2.1 Your radio is designed to only receive certain stations. We may,
at
any time, modify the list of stations which you are allowed to listen
to.
Sometimes using the radio will require that you upgrade the radio
controls.
If you decline such upgrades, you may be denied access to
the related
stations.
2.3 MotoSoft may, at any time modify the way that this
vehicle
works. You explicitly authorize MotoSoft to query your
on-board
computer for usage information.
MotoSoft may disclose this
information to others. MotoSoft shall not be
liable if this information
personally identifies you.
3. You may not do anything that this license does
not explicitly allow you
to do. You do not own this vehicle. This vehicle is
licensed, not sold.
4. The hood of this car is welded shut. You may not open
the hood, or
otherwise disassemble, modify or examine the vehicle. Specifically,
you
may not examine this vehicle for the purpose of designing
plug-compatible
part.
5 You may not rent, lend lease or provide commercial
services with
this vehicle
6 You agree that MotoSoft and it's affiliates may
collect and use
technical information related to your use of this software.
MotoSoft
may use this information to improve the product or to provide you
with
customized services or technologies. MotoSoft is not responsible if
it
should disclose this information in a form that personally identifies
you.
7 You may use this vehicle on roads not (yet) under the control
of
MotoSoft. The fact that we have provided you with a map to
specific
businesses does not mean that MotoSoft is responsible for those
businesses
8 This license applies to any upgrades to this vehicle provided
by
MotoSoft. Although MotoSoft may currently provide upgrades, MotoSoft
may
discontinue this service at any time for any reason.
9 To use upgrades, you
must first be authorized to use the current form of
your vehicle. Once you have
upgraded your vehicle, you may not revert to
an older version -- even if the
'upgrade' is worse than the original form.
12 There are certain countries in
which you may not drive this
vehicle. You agree to abide by these
restrictions.
13 You may replace the motor of this vehicle provided that no
part of
the body remains with the old motor. The original purchaser of
this
vehicle may make a one-time transfer of ownership to another user.
This
transfer must include all spare parts, instruction manuals and
upgrades.
You may not resell this vehicle via a used car dealer.
14 In
addition to other suing you for breach of contract and/or other
remedies,
MotoSoft may terminate this EULA if you fail to comply with
the terms and
conditions of this license. In such an event,
you must irrevocably destroy
all identifiable parts of the vehicle.
15 If you live in Canada or the
United States, MotoSoft only warranties
this vehicle to perform as advertised
for 90 days. Any defects
discovered after 90 days are not the responsibility of
MotoSoft.
Upgrades installed after your initial purchase of this vehicle are
not
covered beyond this initial 90 day period. Upgrades and repairs
performed
and/or installed by MotoSoft after the initial 90 day period
have
no warranty whatsoever.
MotoSoft is not responsible for anything
bad that happens as a result
of your use of this vehicle -- You are not
entitled to any damages,
including but not limited to consequential damages even
if the vehicle does
not meet the limited warranty above and even if any repair
or upgrade
fails to achieve it's purpose. The only remedy you are allowed is
the
refund of the purchase price of the software or repair/ replacement of
the
malfunctioning part(s). You are responsible for the cost of shipping
a
defective machine to MotoSoft for repair or replacement. Any such repair
or
replacement is only warrantied for the remainder of the above 90 day
warranty or
30 days -- whichever is more.
16 The 90 day limited warranty above is
the only warranty provided
by MotoSoft, and replaces any promise or
representation made by sales
personnel or advertising. Other than the warranty
above, this vehicle is
provided AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS. There is no promise
that the vehicle
will even start after 90 days.
Nor is there any warranty as to
non-infringement of patents.
17 MotoSoft is not responsible for any damages,
including injury, death,
loss of profit release of confidential information or
loss of privacy.
MotoSoft is not liable for it's negligence, or failure to
provide
reasonable care or act in good faith. MotoSoft is not liable even if
it
beaches the terms of this agreement.
18 If MotoSoft deigns to pay
damages, those damages will never exceed
the price you paid for the software or
$5.00 (whichever is more).
19 MotoSoft gets to decide where any lawsuit
takes place. If that
happens to be thousands of miles from where you live ...
tough.
21 This agreement is the entire agreement between you and
MotoSoft. Any
offer of indemnity, safety, or protection is only meant to get you
to
purchase this vehicle, and is shall not bind MotoSoft. To the extent
to
which any term of this license shall prove to be void, invalid,
unenforceable or
illegal, all remaining parts of this agreement shall
continue to
apply. ---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within
each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 06 2006 @ 06:49 AM EST |
| There are computers in NZ?? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 06 2006 @ 08:05 AM EST |
I advise New Zealand to support a OS, which properitery, high-quality virus
attaced,stupid-bugfixed again & again in the next upgrade which make you to
more mone,
alwyas slower than previous version.
This will prove all you members of parliments are intelligent.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
