What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
49 Comments
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -7/+61Microsoft is a gigantic law firm that owns some software.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -16/+54Thank you, MS! Your expensive, horrid, DRM/activation/WGA/spyware infected software is increasing Linux market share everyday. Thank you, MS!
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -9/+33MS has Software it owns? I thought it copied it and lawyers stole it....oh wait...same thing....
- Hermmunster, on 10/11/2007, -2/+18Nothing Microsoft says is valid until it is ruled upon in a court of law. It isn't the distro that is constrained in action by this. It is Microsoft that is constrained because if they progress with their plans they open themselves to indemnifying everyone from a single transaction. I have never considered them to be very bright people. They've abused the computing world so many times that now people are fighting back. They should expect this.
Remember a press release is not a legal document and is meant to create uninformed users. This particular bit of commentary by Microsoft is FUD but on a very transparent level.
Essentially we are saying play by the rules that we created for this whole universe of Linux or don't play at all. Most people would prefer to NOT have Microsoft involved due to this reputation, and a long standing one it is, in stealing technology, in manipulating technology and markets and destroying companies after stealing their IP. - generalloy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15"any later version", MS signed an agreement covering code with copyrights to other parties WITH THIS LANGUAGE in it.
coupons with no expiry date and that MS distributes to OEMs for any updates to SLES
Novell has signalled the intent to include GPLv3 code in their distribution that is covered
PS: MS never signed an agreement with any of the "non-commercial hobbyists", openSUSE developers, or Novell customers that IT'S agreement purports to cover.
Read all about it on Groklaw. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070518124020691 - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13DRM: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070115-8616.html
Activation: http://www.mypcpros.com/computer-blog/2007/5/1/microsofts-new-validation-policy.html
WGA: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=142
Spyware: http://slated.org/vista_is_worlds_most_expensive_spyware - in2deep, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12Microsoft sounds so ridiculous lately!
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -6/+15There will be a steady increase of Linux market share as people flee the MS software dictatorship. The freedom and quality offered by Linux is superior to the tyranny and shoddy garbage offered by MS.
- jjtechno, on 10/11/2007, -6/+14Looks like more FUD is yet to come. MonopolySoft is very good at it. Fortunately for us we have heard it all before.
- leogodin217, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11Are there any lawyers with an opinion on this? I'm no expert but I don't see how this GPL v3 would be binding to MS since it signed agreements before it was released. I highly doubt GPL v3 will be legally enforceable against MS. Keep in mind that I am not a lawyer and I am not familiar with the laws involved.
- deadlikeoscar, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Look at Windows 5 years ago and look at Windows now. Do the same with Linux and I think you see who will be making the biggest strides in 5 years' time.
- MWeather, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7You do know there is DRM on CDs too, right? And can you guess who makes a lot of it? Microsoft.
- jeffreyharmison, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9EULA = you are bound.....as in welcome to the Borg
- somerandomnerd, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I can buy music online without DRM.
I can use software without putting a disc in without "activation."
WGA=Windows Genuine Advantage. Where Windows only allows you to install things like security updates once you've proven your copy to be genuine. Apart from the fact that if a bunch of people using pirated software and up as a part of a massive botnet it's no good for anyone, I've got family who have had their PC fail WGA, even though the copy of Windows is the OEM, preinstalled copy.
Spyware- so, you've never had Windows send any of your personal data back to Microsoft? If you use a security tool other than Windows Defender, you might find that not to be true... - thewump, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8The bigger they get the harder they fall. How long can Microsoft hold on to this arrogant stance where no matter what the issue is, they make it the OTHER SIDES responsibility to create legal clarity.
- rpedro, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4And by the way, from TFA:
"But Red Hat wants to limit those talks to pure interoperability between Windows and Red Hat Linux, with the goal of solving real customer problems. "I want to talk to the folks at Microsoft about our two operating systems and how we can work together to solve real customer problems without attaching any unrelated strings, such as intellectual property," Paul Cormier, Red Hat's executive vice president of engineering, said."
I can understand Red Hat here, Who the f*** wants Microsoft's 'intelectual property'??! EEEWW, icky..... - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7MS can"t maintain their monopoly with software as shockingly dreadful as Vista, Linux market share gains are inevitable.
- caleb4mj, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3No, its GPLv2 or any later version. If I license it under the GPLv2 I would need to clearly state this and document it in the code. If this has not been done then the "or any later version" still applies to your customers and their customers and so on. If I get a copy of Novell SLES that says in a license "GPLv2 or any later version", Novell just gave me an offer to get a GPLv3 copy, which I could accept at the expense of Microsoft for not taking into account the GPLv3 when they signed their deal. Its not like it wasn't under draft at the time, or they weren't warned about it. It has been no secret, in fact it has been an extremely Open process. Even Microsoft could have voiced their concerns and possibly had their changes accepted into the License. Why they didn't is anyone's guess.
- atdigg, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5You laugh about 2% of the market but that means millions of people. Also, Linux developers did what they did when there were less people using Linux, most of them do what they do because they like it not for glory or money.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7That's why Dell is offering Ubuntu and recommending that customers stay away from Vista
- daftman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3You have a choice not to download the code. It's simple isn't it? The agreement isn't just the GPLv2. It's "the GPLv2 or any later version." That's the point. Had you read the agreement properly, you wouldn't ***** yourself up.
- daftman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2First question, are you a lawyer or you play one on the internet?
Second question, using this logic, would this not render all license and EULA to be useless since "You can put anything you want into a license agreement ... but that doesn't necessarily make it legally binding"?
Third question, do you know that licensing is a contract as as far as the terms isn't illegal, it is legally binding? Since you are just using an extreme example to prove your point, try to relate to the actual GPL3, which are created by real lawyers, not fake one on the internet. - whiteguysamurai, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I do hope Microsoft finally just gets with the program and makes better software in general.
This is way too much money to be spending on something the average person doesn't know, nor cares about.
The user suffers from this, and they keep from going for the legacy free OS they have been promising for over 15 years.
This is money better spent on making the system better. - cquinnd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Exactly what "DRM" does Microsoft make? I'd bet you don't even know; you guys just look to froth so much at anything that mentions the word, that you don't even bother to be aware of who produces it and where its is used.
- daftman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Incorrect, who did the distribution? DIgg, not the reader. So you license does not applied to the reader. Secondly, your license pertain to copyright. Thus on Digg, the place which host your post, you probably gave up all right to your comments once you accept their EULA. Next time, try harder in making a point.
- aNoble, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Someone call an exorcist! That poor man has been possessed by the Dramatic Chipmunk!
- caleb4mj, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I do not have to accept your license to read your post. I have to accept your license to distribute your post, redistribute your post or distribute coupons that allows my customers to get your post through a third-party along with my software patent idemnification agreement not to sue our customers. Then and only then does your license apply, because it is your IP.
- Dhalgren, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Maybe this guy can help: http://www.bcm-law.com/Bio/MichaelBrandow.asp?
- cquinnd, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3That assumes Windows will remain the same for the next five years as it had for the past five, and that Linux will hit no obstacles of its own in that same timeframe.
- daftman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Sure, but that's not the point.
The point here is that if I say I am not legally bound by Microsoft's EULA in any way, doesn't mean I am correct. Thus it is about validity of their claim, not the future, hypothetical court ruling.
PS: Better head back to your flock in the Microsoft section. So far you've yet to demonstrate any intelligence except being a backseat lawyer. - naio, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Lol, the wishful thinking of the Linux fanboys is hilarious.
- JQP123, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2"Nothing Microsoft says is valid until it is ruled upon in a court of law." And the same applies to the FSF.
- HairyPoter, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1phuck microsoft!
- JQP123, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1"I have to accept your license to distribute your post,...". Why? Because that's how the GPL works? Digg just distributed my post. Did they legally agree to my terms? If so, then I think I'll modify them to include license fees.
- schoate09, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3Boot20, show me where they RECCOMEND not to use Vista. Oh, right, you're exaggerating the fact that they offer Ubuntu.
- Soulhuntre, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1The "or any later version" stuff is not a important point here. The reason is simple - it only applies fromt he license change data forward, and it's optional.
Lets say you have a bit of code and it is GPLV2 with the any later version line in the license. I download it TODAY. If TOMORROW you change it to the GPLV3, the copy I downloaded today is STILL GPLV2. - JQP123, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2You can put anything you want into a license agreement ... but that doesn't necessarily make it legally binding. There are laws against restraint of trade as well as implied consent. For example, "This post is Open Source and hereby licensed as follows. Any software used to read or process this message is bound by GPLv3. And, by reading this post, you agree to forfeit all rights to any patents you happen to hold. And you agree to be bound by 'any later version' of this license that I choose to create.". I can say this all I want but I'll never be able to enforce it in a court of law.
- wookieface, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1there's also Cd's with DRM...
- Dhalgren, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1We just need to get Michael Brandow on our side. He can't lose: http://www.bcm-law.com/Bio/MichaelBrandow.asp?
- Disfnord, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1It's a prairie dog, you fat *****.
- bunnyhop45, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1I bought a Mac-it's Unix , basically-goodbye M$
- abuser, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1Haha, well done, Microsoft!
- schoate09, on 10/11/2007, -12/+5Why do i doubt that. You are in such denial.
- cmost, on 10/11/2007, -13/+6Leave poor Microsoft alone. I've never felt obligated to bind myself by any of Microsoft's licenses... Turn about is fair play.
- 7of7, on 10/11/2007, -13/+4Just as Linux, or at least the parts of it that aren't covered by Microsoft patents, doesn't need to conform to Microsoft's licenses.
- thewump, on 10/11/2007, -11/+2Nice thought process.
- Narshe, on 10/11/2007, -13/+3You Sir, are a douche bag.
- jjesusfreak01, on 10/11/2007, -19/+4DRM=The music companies will sell you music online. You still have the option to buy it offline
Activation=I dont need to put my discs in the computer anymore to run the program
WGA=you got me there, though ive never had a problem with it
Spyware=what spyware? windows defender is free, and I dont recall my latest windows pc having any spyware on it when i got it - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -25/+9Yeah, increasing to an asymptote at 2%. (Desktop)
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is