|
|
| The Gotcha on that MS License on the Office 2007 "Giveaway" |
 |
|
Monday, November 27 2006 @ 11:23 AM EST
|
You've probably seen the story about Microsoft's "royalty-free licensing program" on its Office 2007 user interface: Microsoft on Tuesday announced a royalty-free licensing program so that outside developers can apply the Office 2007 interface to their own applications.
The license, which can be applied to applications on any platform, Linux and Mac OS X included, gives developers the right to duplicate Office 2007's new interface elements, including the top-of-the-window Ribbon, the Mini Toolbar, and galleries. The license is perpetual, and no fees will be charged, Microsoft promised.
"There's no fee, you don't owe Microsoft any royalties, and the license is perpetual -- meaning that the terms won't change," wrote Jensen Harris, lead program manager for the Office user experience effort, in a blog entry Tuesday. "This should give you the confidence you need to build a business or product on top of the Office UI platform, secure in the knowledge that you've licensed the technology and research you're using in your product." Unfortunately, there is a gotcha. Microsoft doesn't actually say "anyone" can use this license, as the story indicates; it says in their blog entry that "virtually anyone" can. Isn't there always a catch with Microsoft? Usually a GPL gotcha? So who can and who can't?
To see this gotcha, you have to actually read the license, which you can find here. Of course, it's only in the doc format, Microsoft's format, because deep down Microsoft doesn't really care about interoperability for FOSS users. There is absolutely no reason it couldn't make it available in an OOo-friendly format or PDF or plain text or HTML, but happily, despite the difficulties Microsoft invariably puts in the way of anyone using FOSS, we can use OpenOffice.org to read it, thanks to some wonderful coders who manfully struggled to find ways to interoperate with Microsoft's secret stuff, without much of a helping hand from Redmond, which could easily make all software on Planet Earth smoothly interoperable if it actually felt like it. That's what standards are for. You don't need interoperabilty agreements with a chosen few instead. When you read the document, you'll find you can use the offered Microsoft technology, but only if you agree *not to allow sublicensing*. That's the taint, and in effect that means you can not use it in a GNU/Linux system: d. “Microsoft IP” means the intellectual property rights of Microsoft and its subsidiaries that without this license you would necessarily infringe by copying the Design Guidelines or making, using or distributing your Licensed UI. These rights include pending utility and design patent claims, copyrights, trade dress and trademark rights....2. LICENSE GRANTS. If you comply with this agreement, Microsoft grants you a non-exclusive, perpetual, royalty free license under the Microsoft IP to:
a. copy and reference the Design Guidelines internally to develop the Licensed UI for your Licensed Products; and
b. make, copy, use and distribute the Licensed UI as part of your Licensed Products....
This license contains no sub-license rights. If you allow others to use, copy, modify or distribute your Licensed UI in their products, your contract with them must state that they receive no Microsoft rights in the Licensed UI from you. They can request a license from Microsoft at http://msdn.microsoft.com/officeui.
To make it worse, they add this: 4. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS. Microsoft reserves all rights not expressly granted in this agreement. No additional rights (including any implied licenses) are granted by implication, estoppel or otherwise.
And then the blog entry explains the exclusions -- even if a programmer was willing to give up rights that we normally associate with FOSS -- and sadly there are a few like that -- Microsoft lays it all out: There's only one limitation: if you are building a program which directly competes with Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, or Access (the Microsoft applications with the new UI), you can't obtain the royalty-free license. Question for Microsoft: can you identify any OSI-approved
Open Source licenses that neither grant rights to sublicense nor grant
rights to incorporate all or any part of the application's code base
in other applications of the type you here exclude? Perhaps it would be more honest to say virtually *no one* in the FOSS community, your principal competition, can use this license, and for sure the GPL need not apply. Bob Sutor captures the essense of the offer: Again, this is business, but look at what they are doing and not doing with respect to ODF. OOXML, and now the UI through this lens if you want to really understand what is going on.
Their 2006 annual report lays out the perceived risk factors for open source. I found this paragraph in the report the most interesting: We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights against piracy, infringement of our patents by third parties, or declining legal protection for intellectual property. We defend our intellectual property rights and combat unlicensed copying and use of software and intellectual property rights through a variety of techniques. Preventing unauthorized use or infringement of our rights is difficult. Piracy of our products represents a loss of revenue to us. While this adversely affects U.S. revenue, the impact on revenue from outside the United States is more significant, particularly in countries where laws are less protective of intellectual property rights. Similarly, the absence of harmonized patent laws makes it more difficult to ensure consistent respect for patent rights. Future legal changes could make this even more challenging. Throughout the world, we actively educate consumers about the benefits of licensing genuine products and obtaining indemnification benefits for intellectual property risks, and we educate lawmakers about the advantages of a business climate where intellectual property rights are protected. However, continued educational and enforcement efforts may fail to enhance revenue. Reductions in the legal protection for software intellectual property rights or compliance with additional intellectual property obligations impacting the rights of software developers could both adversely affect revenue. In short, they want strong patent laws around the world so they can make buckets of money. At least they told the SEC the truth about that. It's not about stimulating innovation -- just stone cold cash, to "enhance revenue". And here's an intriguing detail, in the section about perceived risks from security issues:
The cost of these steps could reduce our operating margins. Despite these efforts, actual or perceived security vulnerabilities in our products could lead some customers to seek to return products, to reduce or delay future purchases, or to use competing products. Customers may also increase their expenditures on protecting their existing computer systems from attack, which could delay adoption of new technologies. Any of these actions by customers could adversely affect our revenue. In addition, actual or perceived vulnerabilities may lead to claims against us. While our license agreements typically contain provisions that eliminate or limit our exposure to such liability, there is no assurance these provisions will be held effective under applicable laws and judicial decisions. Ah, from the horse's mouth: Microsoft just might be held legally responsible for selling software that is insecure. Say, that makes me wonder: what about that offensive EULA whereby Microsoft gets to scan your computer, track its every breath, and kill it if they feel like it (or should I say cut off its air supply)? Do you suppose it might not actually hold up in court? Well, ask your lawyer, but why not do as the Microsoft annual report suggests many may do and refuse to agree to such humiliating terms in the first place? After all, you do have a choice now. To paraphrase the Barkis character in Charles Dickens' David Copperfield, "Linux is willing."
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: feldegast on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 11:37 AM EST |
if needed
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2006 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: crs17 on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 11:42 AM EST |
Place anything off-topic and interesting here. Please make links clickable.
Thanks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- WiFi Patent - Authored by: allthingscode on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 11:56 AM EST
- Groklaw possible suggestion - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 11:58 AM EST
- Nice article on the Novel-Microsoft deal - Authored by: gjleger on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 01:32 PM EST
- Off-topic here - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 02:05 PM EST
- Microsoft loses patent suit in South Korea - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 02:12 PM EST
- OT: IP, the "Intangible Property" - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 02:23 PM EST
- French parliament dumping Windows for Linux - Authored by: luvr on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 02:48 PM EST
- How many people does it take to shutdown Vista? - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 02:52 PM EST
- The punchline: one year to write 200 lines of code - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 03:07 PM EST
- Wow.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 03:15 PM EST
- not too surprised - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 09:07 PM EST
- almost 1 to 1 - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 09:13 PM EST
- How many people does it take to shutdown Vista? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 03:30 PM EST
- Has anyone not read 'The Cathedral and the Bazaar' yet? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 06:55 PM EST
- How many people does it take to MAKE A DECISION? - Authored by: tce on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 09:58 PM EST
- only takes 43 people to shutdown Vista? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 11:06 PM EST
- How many people does it take to shutdown Vista? - Authored by: wvhillbilly on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 11:57 PM EST
- This is a Must Read for everyone. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 12:17 AM EST
- How many people does it take to shutdown Vista? - Authored by: grouch on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 01:13 AM EST
- Link is dead - Authored by: Altair_IV on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 01:43 PM EST
- Link is dead - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 01:59 PM EST
- Software Patents: A Time For Change article - Authored by: artp on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 03:08 PM EST
- OT: HTML tutorials - Authored by: grouch on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 05:48 PM EST
- Linux ditros - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 06:29 PM EST
- Off-topic here - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 06:46 PM EST
- Richard Stallman FSFE transcript... - Authored by: Latesigner on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 07:47 PM EST
- Groklaw should stick to the SCO case - Authored by: josmith42 on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 08:24 PM EST
- Windows Vista incompatible with secure projects - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 02:40 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 11:46 AM EST |
Exactly what 'intellectual property' is Microsoft licensing here? Is it the
ribbon interface itself, or a specific Microsoft-style implementation? Even if
it is a specific Microsoft-style implementation, how can they claim ownership?
Copyright, trademark, patents--none seem to apply here.
Anyone have some insight?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 11:51 AM EST |
Why would I need a license to build something that looks like a new MS Office
interface? Are they just protecting the bitmaps on the buttons? Are they
trying to stop OO from adopting the new MSOffice look and feel?
If I have a new idea, or new variation of an idea, for laying out user options
in an application I don't see how that's patentable. And I don't see why I
can't copy it (except for graphics on buttons) even if I admit I was directly
inspired by MS's new design.
Layouts of buttons and menus are trivialities, even with cool new names like
"ribbons". This is not the same as saying good UI design is trivial,
however.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 11:52 AM EST |
that last paragraph is interesting.
sounds like they are expecting some customers to give them the bird when forced
to upgrade to their wonderful vista and all their EULA's.
to me that is probably why they made the deal with novell they wanted a cut of
the contracts that they are about to sell.
but now that they made the deal I wonder if companies are going to go with
novell because I know some shops don't want anything to do with ballmer and
their wonderful IP.
I refuse to give any more of my money to novell because when you buy a coporate
sled maintenance account you are giving money to microsoft too because they get
a cut - at least for the next five years.
we will be looking around at redhat, canonical, xandros, linspire, and mandrake.
thank goodness for choices. can anybody imagine a one os world. not me. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 11:53 AM EST |
I saw this:
"It's not about stimulating innovation -- just stone cold cash, to
"enhance revenue"."
Yes.
What do we expect? MS is in business to make money. Are we seriously expecting
them to support freedoms as a primary goal? If they were, would we even need a
FSF? MS could singlehandedly eliminate 95% of the need for the FSF on the PC
platform by licensing Windows and Office under the GPL. Which, of course, they
won't.
Sun didn't open source Java to contribute to the community or protect our
freedoms - they did so to enhance their brand image in the community, in hopes
of improving business results (negative operating margins, negative ROE,
negative income). They hope the community will respond favorably, the suits will
read WSJ articles and associate SUNW in a positive light, and they'll sell some
hardware and services.
It amazes me that we are always aghast when we see MS do something for selfish,
profit-grabbing gains. Why do we expect otherwise?
It's one of the most interesting economic issues of this era - can raw
capitalism (MS) compete with altruism oriented labor supply (FOSS)? What happens
here will be studied for centuries.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Andrew BC on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 11:59 AM EST |
Well what do you expect?
The licence is useless anyway. There is so much prior art that only people who
take out the licence are at any risk and I can't imagine any FOSS coders doing
that.
It's pathetic, and that's the opinion of the majority of the replies on the
blog. No, actually it's laughable.
The Risks section of the Annual Report is one long tearful whine that made me
smile. Yup, the world is going to agree to join in an wonderful patent
agreement that will benefit MS - in their dreams!
They're looking increasingly impotent to me.
Go FOSS!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 12:05 PM EST |
Microsoft doesn't really care about interoperability for FOSS
users.
Microsoft cares deeply about interoperability for FOSS users!
It will do everything in its power to block it if possible, and hinder it if it
can't be blocked. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 01:25 PM EST |
"There's only one limitation: if you are building a program which directly
competes with Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, or Access (the Microsoft
applications with the new UI), you can't obtain the royalty-free license."
That doesn't look specifically anti-FOSS to me, it looks anti-competitive across
the board. Equal opportunity anti-competitiveness.
It just puzzles me how they keep talking about interoperability and openness,
but come up with things like this. Do they really think the rest of the world
is that stupid, that we can't read and see the truth?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: artp on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 01:27 PM EST |
Original: "There's only one limitation: if you are building a program which
directly competes with Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, or Access (the
Microsoft applications with the new UI), you can't obtain the royalty-free
license."
Paraphrase: You can use this program for anything except its intended purpose.
Art P.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Winter on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 01:27 PM EST |
Just tell the world, OO.org's interface is 100% free, source code included. No
strings attached.
Btw, having seen all the wrangling around the licenses of the MS Closed XML
schemata, I would be really surprised if I ever saw a really open or honest
license from MS. Let allone open AND honest.
Rob
---
Revenge, Justice, Security, and Revenge, chose any two.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 01:35 PM EST |
I was just thinking. An open source Office wouldn't compete with word, excel,
and powerpoint.
It doesn't run on windows. :)
However, if you wrote a PowerPen word processor for windows...
So tecnically writing PowerWP for linux only is valid.
Even though windows competes with linux their application softwares don't unless
someone ports the specific Linux app to windows.
Right?
The only way such applications would compete is if microsft ports MS office to
linux.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 01:40 PM EST |
I don't think you really meant to say "you can not use it in a GNU/Linux
system." I think rather that you meant to say "you cannot use it for
software licensed under any open source license."
I know of no reason why you couldn't write software under this license grant and
run it legally on a GNU/Linux system. You could also license it to others to
run it on GNU/Linux, so long as you didn't allow them to sublicense it without
Microsoft's permission.
I also know of no reason why you would want to.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 01:42 PM EST |
Is it possible that future versions of .Net will somehow be encumbered with this
license? Could this limit Mono development?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 01:58 PM EST |
That's Microsoft's version of disappearing ink because they obsolete the DOC
format so frequently. :-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cmc on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 02:06 PM EST |
I have but two questions, OK three. The first is only rhetorical, though:
1. ARE YOU SERIOUS?!?
2. How can something as simple as "the Mini Toolbar" or
"galleries" be protected material? We've seen examples of each of
them for years. I have no idea what the "Ribbon" is, but since it's
in a Microsoft product, then (like the others) I doubt it's an original concept
or "innovation".
3. Can Microsoft please explain what qualities a piece of software must have in
order to be "a program which directly competes with Word, Excel,
PowerPoint, Outlook, or Access". For example, if I create a text editor
for myself, is that considered a program that "directly competes" with
Word? What if I distribute it to others? When you think about it, virtually
any program could (to really stretch it) be claimed to "directly
compete" with Access. After all, Access is simply a database manager with
reporting capabilities. Isn't that what most applications do -- allow you to
enter and store information, and then print reports based on that information?
This seems to be yet another Microsoft "innovation" -- a way to make
money from a dubious (if not illegal) method, showing absolutely nothing
original or meaningful, while trying to restrict what others can do.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 02:06 PM EST |
if you are building a program which directly competes with
Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, or Access (the Microsoft applications with the
new UI), you can't obtain the royalty-free license.
So
let me see if I have this straight...
I have a license to use the
Office 2007 UI (whatever that is), but not if I'm writing a competing
application (i.e. another office app)?
What's the point? Where would I
want to use the Office UI other than in an office-type application? Or is
"Office UI" simply a euphemism for "Microsoft
look-and-feel"?
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it."
-- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kawabago on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 02:19 PM EST |
It makes absolutely no sense. Mind you, Microsoft thought the Zune would be an
ipod killer, instead it's another bullet hole in Microsoft's foot. The next
bullet is the Vista EULA, it might actually be a bullet to Microsoft's head.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- History of M$ - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 08:42 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: mlevison on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 02:26 PM EST |
So who decides? Who decides if my application competes with Office? When do they
decide? When I first start coding my application? When I release it? What
happens when I release version 2.0?
http://www.notesfromatooluser.com/2006/11/nasty_catch_wit.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsmith on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 02:39 PM EST |
- It isn't specified what is licensed (patents, copyrights?)
- No sublicensing
So, no reason to license this.
Besides, wouldn't any OSS/FS developer with half a brain know that you should
never ever enter into a relationship with MS?
---
Intellectual Property is an oxymoron.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Simon G Best on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 03:09 PM EST |
Sounds to me like it's one step short of Microsoft giving permission for
people to use their parts of the moon.
It's like they're saying, "Okay,
you can use pieces of our lunar real estate, free of charge, for anything you
like, except for the following: firstly, you can't sub-let pieces of our lunar
real estate; and secondly, you can't use our real estate to compete with
Microsoft. Other than that, you can use our lunar real estate for anything you
like. This license is free-of-charge and perpetual - you need not pay us
anything to receive this license, and need not worry about this license, or its
terms and conditions, ever changing or being revoked."
Of course, it'll
only be a matter of time before Microsoft abandons its claimed parts of the Sea
of Tranquillity, and starts claiming parts of the Sea of Rainbows instead.
Tough luck for those who based their lunar efforts in Tranquillity,
eh?
Some people really do claim to be selling pieces of lunar real
estate, though. Their idea, I think, is that there are enough gullible people
for it to work, people who will just assume that the sellers must actually own
some of the moon in order to be able to sell it in the first place - otherwise,
how can they sell pieces of lunar real estate if they don't actually own any?
Similarly, I'd imagine Microsoft is expecting people to think, "Hey! Microsoft
must actually own the rights to this ribbon stuff, otherwise they wouldn't be
able to license it, would they?"
Or perhaps it's just a wookiee put out
by Microsoft to try to get us to take our minds off the Novell
stuff...
---
NO SOFTWARE PATENTS - AT ALL! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 03:15 PM EST |
I assume this means that they've got pending patent applications on these UI
elements - the Ribbon, the mini-whatsit, etc.
Anyone know how to find the relevant application at the PO?
Seems they'd be prime fodder for a prior-art easter egg hunt!
If they're still pending then now's the time to do it - rather than trying to
get them rescinded later.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MrCharon on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 04:04 PM EST |
Microsoft Patents:
D532,015 User interface for a portion of a display screen
Filed: October 24, 2005
D532,014 User interface for a portion of a display screen
Filed: February 7, 2006
D531,636 User interface for a portion of a display screen
Filed: February 7, 2006
D531,635 User interface for a portion of a display screen
Filed: February 7, 2006
Hard to tell from the pictures what it is they are patenting, but two of them
remind me of UI elements in Vista.
---
MrCharon
~~~~
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 04:40 PM EST |
It's the rough equivalent of taking the current version of Office and setting
every single available button-bar section to be on permanent display, over four
screen rows, taking up about a sixth of screen real estate.
Sure it's "contextualised" via tabs but that doesn't affect how much
less space is available for the actual document.
It's like M$ licensing the "right" to run your screen at 640x480 while
using Office! Except you'd probably see more of your document, if you did that
with the current version of Office, than with this!
One bit of good news though:
I believe I can state with absolute certainty that this new interface is 100%
incompatible with laws and guidelines relating to accessibility for the
visually-impaired.
Which means that there has to be a way of reverting it to a standard interface
(ie the kind of interface used by everyone else for the past 10+ years).
It'll be interesting to see how many people take that option so they can see
more than half their document at one time!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: chdub on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 04:53 PM EST |
If MS is trying to protect the general concepts behind Office 2007's ribbons,
they may run into trouble with IBM/Lotus. WordPro 9x uses context sensitive
feature pallettes that function quite a a bit like the Office 2007 context
senstive ribbons. The ribbons look different but do similar things. I'd think
a smart lawyer could make a strong argument that the WordPro feature pallettes
constitute "prior art"...
Anyway, maybe it's a good thing for FOSS developers to think about different
ways of presenting features to users, other than trying to mimic MS's approach.
We see this mimickry in most Linux distributions' desktop layouts, including
things that look remarkably like Windows Start button and Taskbar, as well as
the OO screen layouts, menus and toolbars which can be depressingly similar to
MS Office.
The MS way isn't necessarily the most user-friendly way of providing
functionality. Nevertheless in many cases Linux developers seem to have
consciously copied the MS way of doing things in an attempt to make Linux
familiar to Windows users. As a marketing tactic, that might make sense, but as
a productivity decision, it often doesn't.
MS Office features are often difficult to find and use because MS has tried to
maintain "backward usability" - not changing things too drastically so
users will feel generally familiar with a new version of their Office software.
As feature sets have mutated, that backward usability has spawned a hodge podge
of features buried under layers of dialogs and sometimes
mysteriously/inconsistently named labels. MS "usablity" engineers
often get things terribly wrong and (IMHO) the Office 2007 toolbar is a prime
example poor decision making on MS' part - some changes make sense but many
don't.
Perhaps the step change MS is introducing in its Office applications' interfaces
could be a watershed for FOSS developers? Faced with an implicit threat of
legal action against developers who mimic the MS look and feel without a
"licence" to do so, why not take it as a challenge to think more
creatively about how to design application interfaces. (I always liked
WordPro's pallettes as being a lot more functional and powerful than Word's more
convoluted menu/dialog structure. To be sure, WordPro had its share of
menus/dialogs that copied Word's structures, but the pallette was nifty and
unique.)
By making some quite disruptive changes to their interfaces, MS is levelling the
playing field in terms of usability learning curves and FOSS can exploit that.
In any case the MS way is not the best way and copying MS is in something of a
surrender to mediocrity.
Apple's doing pretty well going their own way design-wise. Why not Linux?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gfim on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 04:56 PM EST |
Reductions in the legal protection for software intellectual
property rights or compliance with additional intellectual property obligations
impacting the rights of software developers could both adversely affect
revenue.
To me, that sounds like they're saying that
they might not be able to protect their "rights" as well as they would like and
other developers might assert their "rights" against them. Oh no. That's
very unfair. We are the software company. We shouldn't have to follow the
same rules as other developers.
---
Graham [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 04:56 PM EST |
"Why did Microsoft decide a new UI was needed? Why now?
--- As we've added more and more features and functionality to the applications
over time, it's gotten harder for people to find the things they want to do with
the products. For example, Microsoft Word 1.0 only had about 100 commands, and
by using the menus you could see everything you could do. Today, Microsoft
Office Word 2003 has over 1,500 commands, many of which can be difficult to
find. That element of discoverability is just one of the key issues addressed by
the new UI."
I don't think they've ever stopped to consider that probably 90%+ of their
users, 90%+ of the time, only ever use those same 100 commands that were in
v1.0.
In other words:
"... it's gotten harder for people to find the things they want to do with
the products."
Indeed it has, spot on - because you've buried them among the other 1400 things
that no sane and reasonable person wants to be bothered with!
Bit of an exaggeration, yes, but not by much.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: LPrecure on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 05:04 PM EST |
(Hoping I can manage the HTML for this). Something in that last quote
sort-of jumped out at me.
The cost of these steps could reduce
our operating margins. Despite these efforts, actual or perceived security
vulnerabilities in our products could lead some customers to seek to return
products, to reduce or delay future purchases, or to use competing products.
Customers may also increase their expenditures on protecting their existing
computer systems from attack, which could delay adoption of new
technologies.
Maybe it's just my low opinion of Microsoft,
but that sounds a lot like "The bugs we built into our software might be small
enough that customers may chose to try to limp along with third-party patches,
which might be a threat to our business model of forced upgrades under the
promise of someday producing something reliable." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: grouch on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 05:40 PM EST |
Please see
Writing HTML - 8c.
Links to the World: Internet Sites for a very easy tutorial on writing "HTML
for Anchors to the Internet".
You seem to have the very mistaken idea that
anchors should be the same as the URLs they link to. Making those often
incomprehensible character strings act as anchors simply interrupts your message
and makes it much harder to read. Such a scrambled mess discourages people from
even attempting to read it.
---
-- grouch
http://edge-op.org/links1.html
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 05:47 PM EST |
| There was an anonymous comment, quite long, that included a bunch of long urls,
so it threw the page off. So here it is fixed:
*************************
WHY
SOFTWARE PATENTS DON'T WORK -
but
leave room for where FUD and Fiction
do...!
Important
reading about reasons why
software patents
“don't work and never should
have been
allowed” from this Groklaw
Article (regarding
software
patents)...
http://www.gro
klaw.net/
article.php?story=2006091118502284
Another Request to
Pick
Your Brains:
International Characters' Business Model
Tuesday,
September 12
2006 @ 05:50 AM EDT
These important comments
(and
others
were derived from these reader's comment)... of the anonymous
nature,
of
course!
http:/
/
www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=
2006091118502284#c478525
What
is
wrong with doing away with SW
Patents and having only Copyright (with
this
covenant)? Authored by:
Anonymous on Tuesday, September 12 2006 @ 12:17 PM
EDT
The devil, is
in the details.
The sin of the software patent, is that
it
is
a patent on an idea that can only be expressed by actually
writing
the
software.
Let us ask the authors of this new
concept
this:
Where is the discussion about the software patent
as
an instrument of benefit to
society, that must come FIRST, before
this convent
proposal, is even
discussed. Where is the argument
that uses the Socratic
method to validate
the software patent in the
first place, and where is it
that such an
argument comes up
with any sense to idea of software (or business
method)
patents at
all?
The machine is the key place to start. For
example:
if
Intel, when they started out, wanted to have all their customers
sign
a
contract of use of their chips where all software that uses
their
patented chip
technology has to kick back money to Intel..., well,
let us
then ask, if Intel
did this, then how many chips would they
sell? My bet
is that not many
would buy into this deal, and so
as a result of the hardware
manufacturer's
encouragement of software
development (all done without tax on
developers =
FREE), this results
in more hardware and chips being sold,
etc!
Along
comes software... Let us discuss what software
is. What
is
software? What is digital as well (as software is part
of the
realm of
digital we need to know this as well)!
With software
you
have software
languages being developed that will allow
applications to be
developed for
certain hardware environments.
Then, using the language,
applications are
developed.
Apps are not unlike stories. They
are copyrighted
and protected
by copyright. But, protection of the idea of
a story is
just
plain wrong as it them gives a monopoly on the idea of
the
story.
If the author of Harry Potter had a patent on the
idea
of
stories that involved witch-craft, schools, etc, then this
would
be
wrong. There is copyright, and the story is
protected
as
told. Others, should be able to tell stories of
witches
and
schools... no?
Software is a story that is
told,
period.
A
monopoly, or software patent in it' own context, on
the
ideas of such stories
(including Harry Potter, and Software that
works to do
something) is plain
wrong, as it locks up an idea for a
term of time where no
other stories of the
same genre can be told,
and some that could be told
might be better than
the original.
But for the term of the software
patent, is it possible that
no other
stories can be told. Why is this
bad? Well, for
example
software patents in the health care field that
might protect
badly
written code, or a badly written way to address a problem,
where with
a
software patent that broadly awards a monopoly on the idea of
doing
what the
problem needs, this patent or monopoly might, in the
worst
case, protect
this badly addressed idea and solution to the
point where it will
cause more
cost to society than should happen (vs
a society where such patents
are not
allowed, thus allowing
different, and better code to be FREELY written
that
would then
benefit society without having to wait 17 years to be able
to
write
it)!
Can you imagine if there were patents on game
shows
or
reality TV? We would be left watching one channel, with one
rerun
for
17 years. Well, if it is art, it is art, and a
properly running
software
is art, can be sold as art, and can be
supported by it's author (to
those who
need support as the learning
of how the art works is important for
those that
need to use it, and
who better to hire than the original artist, or
coder(s) for
this
support!
As to how digital as an entity is confusing,
and why
many
wonder why ideas that are in the digital realm can be patented
(as
is it real or
not, really)..., then view this segment on CSPAN to
get a full
understanding of
what is digital and what is not.
Basically, it seems that
digital is a
"random whisp of a fairy
tale" that sits as a medium
between two REAL
analog environments
(and is totally dependent on the machine,
or the stage, or
the
printing press, to become what it is). Software. it
is just
a
story!
Now, a key and disturbing question...
What
is
digital
anyway?
Please first view this CSPAN segment found in
the next
url,
and please respond to the logic of the learned
question as to what
the heck is
digital in the first place?
Is digital a
product of the
tech labs and the science, or is the term
digital an invention of
some marketing
types who need an easy to sell
word?
http://www.c-span.org/
congress/digitalfuture.asp
go to and watch this
selection:
Monday,
January 31
Brian Cantwell Smith, dean of the Faculty
of
Information Studies
at the University of Toronto Smith, the author
of
"On the Origin of
Objects," combines degrees in computer
science
and philosophy and is an
expert on the interdisciplinary
convergence brought
about by digitization. His
talk is titled, "And
Is All This Stuff Really
Digital After All?"
So -
according to Brian Cantwell Smith, with
what is digital, not
being
OBVIOUSLY digital, and certainly not what we have
been SOLD regarding
what
digital is..., then, unless you are a quick worded
lawyer who
takes digital and
makes what is not real, suddenly real, then how
can
you patent something that is
not really real, in the first
place?
You
can write a story about what is
not real, then that
becomes real... and your
story can then be protected by
copyright..
it should not be ever protect-able by
patent.
Digital is
just
an easy to sell word, that is abstract when you
get into the actual
details
of what is really happening. A patent takes
software
into this same
level... where what is happening in a body of
software
code (geek speak) can
never be written about in enough detail
by
lawyers (lawyer speak) to make it
real. If patents were that
real, then
you would be able to run them on
your computer! But,
you can't do that
because they are not the code.
The code is
the only way to tell a story...
and that is already protected
by
copyright.
The problem with this
Covenant Idea is that it
fails to
include the logic of why something that is
digital (not
really real), why this
can be, or should be patentable in the
first
place. It would
be interesting to hear from these
same
folks asking these questions as to why
they think that suddenly
that software
patents are really good for society (when
they first
can't do justice to tell
the story of what the code is
actually
saying).
Lawyers might like this,
but it just is not logical
for
tech to understand this... We are left asking how
can a lawyer
can make 1 plus 1
equal 3, as this is not real, but to
lawyers,
it can be real?
Software patents are draped on
software
programs much like the way that
in one story where an emporer is
being
told that the invisible cloths he is
wearing are wonderful,
when the
reality is that he just is not wearing any
cloths! My
bet, is that the
child that spoke up and said that there was
nothing
in the beauty of the
invisible cloths, on the naked ruler, was a
budding
FOSS anti-softwarepatent,
geek!
The covenant should
nullify the patent,
where patents are still
supported, and rely only
on the code being protected, as
copyrighted,
period.
Here is
what a lawyer said recently about the
software writer
being an artist
and how software writers can be protected using
FOSS to keep
their
future income stream protected, and where they can support
their art,
and
make money and be FREE.
View this online video
from
Harvard Law School
and Eben Molgen's Q&A at the end of the
talk!
Speech (h
ttp://jolt.law.harvard.edu/images/
jolt-moglen.spx) for Harvard
<
A HREF="http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/">Journal of
Law
&
Technology (http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/). February
23, 2004,
1h 25m, 8Mib Speex
format. Text
versi
on
The VIDEO of the Harvard speech is interesting
and can be
found
listed in past speakers area here:
http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/
spea
kers/
video:
http://media.law.harvard.edu:8888/
ramgen/jolt/spring_04/2004-02-23_a
e_0630-0830.rm
audio: http://jolt.law.harva
rd.edu/
images/jolt-moglen.spx
There is a transcript...
(note:
Eben
Molgen was a software programmer BEFORE he became a
LAWYER) - it is sad
that in
hearings recently on IP issues and patent
reform in the US Senate, that
the
senators did not even invite such
kinds of wise persons from the citizen
base,
in order to wisely
testify before any IP related committee on Patents
or
Copyright
concerns...? Instead, we always see JUST
corporations
brought
to testify about IP, why is that? Why have no
non-corporate
Open
Source Interests been brought into the loop on this
Patent
Reform Bill at all
(or on copyright matters before the Congress
as
well)?
Quote from
Transcript of interest:
"Q:
But
what about the software
writer?
Moglen: Ah, the software. . .
Q: That's
the kind of stuff I think I was more getting at
with
my question. So you have
somebody who creates something useful
but it has a zero
distribution cost, and
it's useful in a way that's
not, not useful like
celebrity, though I'm not sure,
I don't think
that's useful in some ways, but
it's useful in the different
sense
that it takes a long time to create well.
Moglen: See, the
programmers I worked with all my life
thought
of themselves as artisans, and it
was very hard to unionize
them. They thought
that they were individual creators.
Software
writers at the moment have begun to
lose that feeling, as the
world
proletarianizes them much more severely than it
used to. They're
beginning
to notice that they're workers, and not only that,
but if
you pay attention to
the Presidential campaign currently going on
around
us, they are becoming aware
of the fact that they are workers
whose jobs are
movable in international trade.
We are actually doing more to sustain
the livelihood of
programmers
than the proprietary people are. Mr. Gates has
only so
many jobs, and he will
move them to where the programming is
cheapest.
Just you watch. We, on the other
hand, are enabling people
to gain technical
knowledge which they can customize
and market in
the world where they live. We
are making people programmers,
right?
And we are giving them a base upon which
to perform their
service
activity at every level in the economy, from small to
large.
There is programming work for fourteen-year-olds in the
world
now
because they have the whole of GNU upon which to erect whatever it
is
that
somebody in their neighbourhood wants to buy, and we are making
enough
value for
the IBM corporation that it's worth putting billions
of dollars
behind.
If I were an employee of the IBM corporation right this moment,
I
would
consider my job more secure where it is because of free
software than if
free
software disappeared from the face of the
earth, and I don't think most of
the
people who work at IBM would
disagree with me.
Of all the people
who
participate in the economy of zero marginal
cost, I think the programmers
can
see most clearly where their
benefits lie, and if you just wait for a few
more
tens of thousands
of programming jobs to go from here to Bangalore, they'll
see
it even
more
clearly."
-------------------------------------
So -
even if
Molgen
didn't discuss this in this speech. Let us extend the
meaning
of
the above quote to say this: That the software
patent
becomes
something that changes this artistic right of
expression
"protection"
that true FOSS licenses offer, or
should
offer, so that the future of the story
tellers (software coders)
is
insured and protected for all time!
The
patent, however, is owned by
who? Is it
exportable, to where?
Is to where the labor cost is
less, and
can it then be exported again, and is
this a value to society
(which
society). In the discussion of
software then is the right
for
a software programmer to write software, no
matter where this
person lives, even
a question that we should be asking.
Should
all art, be protected and be
local.
Truely, a
software patent, in the world economic
environment IS
NOT local, as the holder
of the software patent does have
the
monopoly right to exclude any future art,
or innovation from
happening
(unless you pay the Feudal Lord, or Lady, and
their
Lawyers, FIRST! = NOT
FREE... these ideas that are not free and
are
ruled by such a software monopoly
are NOT FREE and instead are
likes of rule by
the DARK SIDE in STAR
WARS. There
is no individual freedom or
power. It only
means limited
permission based power at the point of the
idea, at the will, or
lack
of will, depending on the nature of a decision by
what other human
being or
company, that you are now, to dutifully bow down
before?
IN A SOFTWARE
PATENT WORLD, WHO IS YOUR LORD?
WITH
SOFTWARE PATENTS, the
coders, well they are just another
SERF.
Instead, we can look at a
situation where the human being,
or
entity, uses a Copyright on it's labor
to protect it's work
product! We
can now examine, where this copyright
protection
certainly does protect value,
and reflects the value back on the
work
itself, not just a simple and obvious
idea that seems to have caught
the
eye of some patent examiner as being
novel. Software
copyrighted works
allow future art to flourish and exist
as long as
that new work does not copy
the previous art (creative
commons
license dependent, of course), but by a new
creative commons
copyright
license, or GPLvX, any new work, properly license,
can be
seen as innovative
enough to not be infringing. AND this
is
good. This encourages
society to move forward.
Copyright is an
identity... let it live alone,
and let it rule the
software world, as it was
intended, the story is what it
is.
The patent can never tell
a story, only the story can
tell a
story.
So - The solution is to ban all
Software Patents and
Business
Method Patents as they are Feudalistic by design,
and are
contrary
instruments for the advancement of mankind in a world of
rapid
pace
technology changing landscapes.
The error of the
patent
for
software, is that they can protect some very bad code, for a
very
long time,
where this error is exclusive as an idea, alone, and where
it
does not allow
society the freedom to research and produce better
code, code
that is allowed to
be written to compete with this
"original" code,
where the idea is not
the central in the
protected concept frame of mind as an
idea, but where the
effort of
the author's work stands alone for what it is, and
if you build
it
they will come!
If you code a good program, and you
can
support it,
then you will make money. If someone does a
better
job then you can,
then they should be allowed to try.
Software
coding really
should be an Olympic sport. As
with sport, what is
real... is truely
real. No gold medal
unless you can cross the
finish line first (and
not be getting a
unfair drug induced advantage in doing
so). Fair is
Fair....
FOSS is fair. Software patents can never
be fair to
the
trueness of the software writer as an
artist
"fair".
Copyright can only do that. Patents
can
not.
Your
turn.
PS - First to file patents, are a bad thing
as
well for
the little person or company that has not the resources to
compete
vs
those that have the teams of lawyers and the funds to play
this
game.
Let first to invent rule (and maybe add a first to invent
and
sell to allow for
protection of those that wish to commercialize
a patent (say a
drug patent), but
then leaves room for those that
invent first to exist and keep
inventing freely
without having to
deal with the patent office! But, no
software patents,
and no
business method patents, please.
Thank-you”.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: raya on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 06:40 PM EST |
| A big part of the deal with this license is that you are tied to the MS style/UI
guidelines. That alone would be completely incompatible with the GPL.
This
isn't really suprising, since it is another licence and just about any
non-trivial licence is incompatible with the GPL (unless it is the GPL, by
design).
What is more interesting is why would you need this licence in the
first place - according to the text, you are licencing:
rights
include pending utility and design patent claims, copyrights, trade dress and
trademark rights
Taking each of these, I don't think it is
copyright (probably refers to copying of the UI guidelines) unless they really
think they can dig up look-and-feel copyrights all over again. I doubt they are
dumb enough to try that.
Design patents, trade dress and trademarks are
similar (I understand), and should be avoidable as long as your ribbon interface
is distinguishable from MS's (but if the design guidelines are really tight then
following those may cause you to infringe). Not sure why you would be slavishly
following MS design guide anyway though ?
Then it's utility patents.
Pending. Maybe time to go find out the applications in places where they
publish before grant ?
Acutally, I thought you couldn't get design and
utility patent on the same thing - any actual lawyers care to comment on that
?
In summary, I think this licence is what you might want if you are an
MS ISV on an MS platform wanting your stuff to fit right in with Office 2007 and
follow all the MS guides. In which case you most likely aren't either GPL or
competing with Office 2007.
For free software, I can't think why would you
want this anyway ? You'd be tied to MS design guide, MS look and feel etc. -
condemned to be always following them. Is it really desirable for FOSS to be
the imitator instead of the innovator (if indeed MS has innovated here at all) ? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 06:40 PM EST |
An unfortunate precedent. Barkis was willing, but
the resulting marriage was rather a disaster.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cybervegan on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 06:56 PM EST |
I really think this is MS being P/A on us... it could just as well have said
"Don't you DARE even THINK about making any Free Software that looks
similar to Office 2007".
It's not an offer... it's a threat.
; "stay off our turf".
That's my view.
-cybervegan
---
Software source code is a bit like underwear - you only want to show it off in
public if it's clean and tidy. Refusal could be due to embarrassment or shame...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: grouch on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 07:36 PM EST |
Ah, from the horse's mouth: Microsoft just might be held
legally responsible for selling software that is insecure. Say, that makes me
wonder: what about that offensive EULA whereby Microsoft gets to scan your
computer, track its every breath, and kill it if they feel like it (or should I
say cut off its air supply)? Do you suppose it might not actually hold up in
court?
With all due respect, PJ, this is just shocking.
I am very sad to see the depths to which Groklaw has fallen. It used to be a
nice, objective place to get the facts. Now, we are subjected to amazingly
inaccurate writing like this. C'mon, PJ, horse's
mouth?!?
... gotcha
All troll imitations aside
...
How much of
Microsoft's
Calling Home Problem: It's a Matter of Informed Consent
applies to
Vista? I'm assuming the Windows Genuine A[ttack] was just a beta test of
features for Vista. If that attack feature was a problem because of a lack of
informed consent, surely Vista's EULA is also lacking in that area. Besides the
problems for business users, will someone's Aunt Pitty-Pat really understand
what it means when she clicks that button? Can a person's privacy be so easily
stolen?
---
-- grouch
http://edge-op.org/links1.html
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 03:40 AM EST |
| A few disjointed comments on the new user interface:
From the blog:
"Microsoft spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the research, design, and
development of the new Office user interface". They spent hundreds of millions
on this? Just to develop the new interface? I can't think of anything more
damning to be said of Microsoft than this. They can spend literally hundreds of
millions of dollars just to re-arrange the menus.
There's no user
interface toolkit at this time. This means that if you actually wanted to
duplicate the interface, you would have to write your own UI code at a fairly
low level. I doubt there will be widespread use of this (assuming there is any
interest) until UI toolkits are actually available. This is a lot of work for
someone to implement on their own for relatively little or no gain (or perhaps
even user rejection).
You have to register your product with
Microsoft. I can see this going over well with third party developers, and
especially people developing custom applications. There is no information yet on
what registration means, but I wouldn't be surprised if it included providing
product sales information that the Microsoft marketing department will find
absolutely fascinating.
Microsoft gets a veto on the look of your
application. This isn't explicitly mentioned, but it is implied by the fact that
you have to license the UI elements instead of just getting a set of
recommended guidelines. If Microsoft doesn't like the look of your
software, they can likely make you do it over again (or you can't use their
proprietary UI look and feel).
At present, Microsoft has carved
out five application areas as their own for this UI (the MS-Office
applications). No competitors are allowed. It is possible that future versions
of this license may expand that list.
Right from the license FAQ:
"Can the license be obtained for use in Open Source products? The license
doesn’t make a distinction between open source and commercial software products.
However, some open source licenses have terms that are incompatible with
certain provisions of the Office UI license which are necessitated by the type
of rights Microsoft is granting. Each developer should examine the open source
license he or she is using to determine whether the Microsoft Office UI license
is appropriate for his or her desired use". It seems pretty clear from this
that the license incompatability was intentional.
Anybody
who implements this interface for any reason has to get an individual
license from Microsoft for it. That includes non-commercial use and software
developed for use only inside a company. This is a lot of bureaucracy and
overhead.
If you buy a third party toolkit or component (if and
when they exist) which uses this interface, you still have to get a
license directly from Microsoft before you can use it in your own product. The
vendor's own license with Microsoft does not cover this (because of no
sublicensing). This will be a big disincentive to use it.
I went
to one of Microsoft's web pages to get more information, and go this fascinating
message: "One Moment Please... To help optimize how your Web pages are
displayed, we are checking to see if a Microsoft Office 2007 program is
installed." I try to get information on the UI and Microsoft is checking to
see what software I have installed? They have some rather complex Javascript on
that page, and call the following rather fascinating functions
"ax11.GetOfficeX()" and "ax11.GetOfficeLcid()". I'm not sure how I found that
page, but the link is
Microso
ft Software Check! You need to turn Javascript, off if you want to see the
Javascript. They won't let you in without it (and you don't get in with Linux
either, so I don't know what is in
there).
Summary:
Overall, this sounds like
Microsoft is trying to launch a unique protected MS-Windows "look and feel".
They may be trying to take a page from Apple's book and trying to differentiate
themselves from their competitors (Linux/FOSS) by a unique and (an attempt at a)
superior user interface. I don't think they the skill to pull it off though.
They're definitely not Apple (see the Zune for an example of that).
The
thing that really stands out is that they are trying to use this to get a
stronger hold over third party software developers. If they just wanted to
promote a "better" user interface, they would just publish recommendations, and
make sure that a no charge toolkit was available for MS Visual Studio, possibly
with a certification and logo campaign. Instead they have a very restrictive
license and no toolkit. I won't be surprised to see them imposing steadily
tighter limits on software developers, perhaps ending up with a two-tier market
- MS-Approved and Hoi-Poloi.
I haven't tried MS-Office 2007, but from what
I can see about the "ribbon", I think it's a failure. I don't meant that they
won't persist with it for a while, and perhaps get a few others to use it, but
it's not a better user interface. Basically, they've taken drop-down
menus and turned them 90 degrees while keeping the text in the same orientation.
It's actually a bit more complicated than that, but that is the essense of it.
This is a bad idea, because text (at least with the Roman alphabet) tends to be
wider than it is high, so it doesn't fit well within the available space if you
try to put items side by side. The text has to be cryptically short and
eyestrainingly small to fit. It will be hard for the typical developer on a
tight time budget to design a good user interface that will work with this.
They've also had to come up with some mind bogglingly complex rules to handle
window resizing (as seen in the "preview" document).
Overall, this event
shows something about how Microsoft thinks, but its not something that I would
want to see duplicated on Linux.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- MS User Interface - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 30 2006 @ 04:27 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 04:15 AM EST |
I like it when Groklaw is polite and gives the other guy the benefit of the
doubt, so I thought I'd ask them. Microsoft could after all be making an honest
mistake. My post is on the blog (thanks Jensen) but no reply yet. By all means
check if you're interested - search on the page for GPL -
giafly.
http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2006/11/21/licensing-the-2007-mic
rosoft-office-user-interface.aspx
Question...
Groklaw reports: When you read
the document, you'll find you can use the offered Microsoft technology, but only
if you agree *not to allow sublicensing*. That's the taint, and in effect that
means you can not use it in a GNU/Linux
system
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061122235224396
(1) Does
Microsoft intend that this license allows GPL'd programs to use the Office
UI?
(2) Is Microsoft prepared to make any license changes necessary for (1)?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Ask Microsoft - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 01 2006 @ 05:42 AM EST
- Ask Microsoft - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 01 2006 @ 06:04 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: MindShaper on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 05:45 AM EST |
In sections 3b and 3c.(Emphasis added, shouting removed by me.)
"3b. Your licensed UI must comply with the design guidelines. If Microsoft
notifies you that....you will make necessary changes to comply...
3c.
...The quality of your Licensed Products will be consistent with your other
products, meet or exceed relevant industry standards..."
MS
gets to decide if it likes your product or not, and can unilaterally demand that
you change it to suit MS' business purposes. MS graciously provides an "out" in
section 6:
"it is your responsibility to obtain any additional
rights you need..."
To obtain additional rights, just switch to
open source software. ;)
---
There's a difference between being
free and being unnoticed. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Michelle Readman on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 06:41 AM EST |
I've seen a number of people state that there is, or must be, prior art for the
ribbon UI concept and the other features of the office 2007 UI.
We should start to keep a record of these here at groklaw, rather than simply
stating that they may be around.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 12:53 PM EST |
Would it be Dirty Hands on the part of MS to only produce a License in a Format
only viewable with their products?
They have a "free" MS word viewer, but again, it only runs on their
products.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: darkonc on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 06:57 PM EST |
| Microsoft wants to interoperate with everybody except their competition
-- which completely obviates the very definition of interoperability.
I
also just realized that MS's click-through license reqires you to, if you don't
accept their license, quit out and contact your vendor on how to get a refund...
It doesn't however seem to require that you (not) follow any given course of
action after that -- including coming back later and finishing the
installation.
(am I wronga about that? I haven't read their most recent
license) ---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within
each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: darkonc on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 10:22 PM EST |
| I'm thinking that third parties might be able to sue Microsoft for releasing an
insecure product. Given that they claim to take away the right of the customer
to investigate or patch MS software, and even claim the right to forcibly push
modifications the product, I'm guessing that it should be possible to at least
claim that they're also responsible to third-parties who are injured by the
side-effects of massive distribution of (knowingly) broken software.
There's
no protection from lawsuits from people who MS can't even claim accepted the
no-liability clause. ---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching the
jewel within each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: darkonc on Tuesday, November 28 2006 @ 10:34 PM EST |
| That they could, in theory, go after me for selling my product through a
distributor? (or, more likely, go after distributors and customers who haven't
bothered to separately re-license every copy of my product)?
There is, of
course, also the problem that MS can suddenly refuse to (sub-)license my
customer -- which means that even though they can't sue me, they can still
effectively shut me down by (realistically) threatening to sue anybody who buys
or upgrades my product in the future.
In other words, the peace of Mind
that they claim a developer has from their so-called perpetual license is
illusory.
-- And if you don't think MS would use a loophole like this, if
they decide it would help their bottom line, talk to anybody else who's been
scammed by making a deal with these people in the past. ---
Powerful,
committed communication. Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it
to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 29 2006 @ 05:12 AM EST |
Re David copperfield....
The waiter's called Bill (Bill, William what's the difference), and helps
himself to other people's earnings. Then acts all innocent and lets others
ridicule them.
"I told him not - drank it, and fell dead" vs "We'll indemnify
you against any of your infringing code"
Ahh, the fine art of FUD.
I personally liked Bill's FUD tactics in a way. I think someone may well have
learned from him.....
PJ, thanks for the reference, it gave me a few smiles on an otherwise
frustrating day.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wesley_Parish on Wednesday, November 29 2006 @ 06:54 AM EST |
This - the MS Office 2007 interface - sounds and looks
to me like little
more than the Lotus 1-2-3 / (slash) menu,
as applied to MS Windows and MS
Office.
Microsoft should remember that Lotus brought
look-and-feel
lawsuits against the companies that made the
Twin and VP Planner spreadsheets,
and won them.
Microsoft is renowned for finding crocks of something
quite other than gold at the end of the rainbow, so
naturally I doubt there's
any use to the average software
developer in doing anything about this ...
"offer". ---
finagement: The Vampire's veins and Pacific torturers
stretching back through his own season. Well, cutting like a child on one of
these states of view, I duck [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
