Topic: If its good enough for Microsoft ...

[Nemesis]

Link to full article

Earlier this year Microsoft and Aruba Networks jointly announced the two companies will work to replace Microsoft's existing Cisco wireless network with Aruba's centrally-managed infrastructure, which eliminates the need for individual changes on the access points.

Aruba Networks was selected to provide the networking equipment for what is considered to be one of the world's largest next-generation wireless LANs, serving more than 25,000 simultaneous users a day in some 60 countries. According to an Aruba press statement, Microsoft's new WLAN will be deployed in 277 buildings covering more than 17 million square feet using Aruba mobility controllers, mobility software and some 5000 wireless access points.

What the press statement didn't mention is that Aruba mobility controllers run the Linux operating system which Microsoft has aggressively targeted as being inferior to Windows as part of its "Get the Facts" marketing campaign.

Mark Robards, Aruba Network's Asia-Pacific vice president, said the company's mobility controller switches provide integrated security, including a firewall, VPN, and hardware encryption, and they are "all Linux-based".

[Just plain old Punisher]

Linux is a superor network operating system.

[GE-Raven]

What else would it use?

MS isn't gonna spend money developing a competor to the OS on network hardware.  No point... much cheaper (and smarter) to just hire someone.

Nothing new here... MS has been buying rather than developping (Roxio cd writing engine in XP) for years.

Sounds to me like a good business decision.

Pretty sure most Cisco network hardware OS is based on Unix code. 

GE-Raven

[Dracho]

Actually, a lot of it has used IIS in the past.

[Just plain old Punisher]

The archetecture for networking has been open source for quite some time. There is a lot more to an operating system than just networking.

[Nemesis]

Microsoft have not been above using Open Source Unix based code and incorporating it into their Operating System, passing it off as their own...

You and I went over that some time ago.

1/  Microsoft has used some BSD code and fulfilled the license requirements.

2/  Microsoft as part of fulfilling those license requirements has NOT passed the code off as their own and includes acknowledgements within Windows and on their publicly accessable web site.

You know that I am no Microsoft fanboy but I won't stand by when falsehoods are stated about them so unless you can back up these claims I suggest you stop making them.  I hope that in the future you will be willing to back up your claims with sources and specifics.  If not I will be forced to take actions that I would rather avoid.  Please don't force me to act.

Just as I won't knowingly tolerate lies about Linux I won't tolerate them against other groups or  companies, not even those I dislike. 

[Nemesis]

What else would it use?

MS isn't gonna spend money developing a competor to the OS on network hardware.  No point... much cheaper (and smarter) to just hire someone.

Nothing new here... MS has been buying rather than developping (Roxio cd writing engine in XP) for years.

Sounds to me like a good business decision.

Pretty sure most Cisco network hardware OS is based on Unix code. 

GE-Raven

There is Windows CE embedded and Windows XP embedded which they have promoted.

Considering Microsofts public statements about Linux being "a toy operating system" and "viral" not to mention Linux developers being "communists" and "unAmerican".  To then turn around an use Linux themselves is rather hypocritical when they do have alternatives using their own OS.

[prometheus]

Microsoft have not been above using Open Source Unix based code and incorporating it into their Operating System, passing it off as their own...

You and I went over that some time ago.

1/  Microsoft has used some BSD code and fulfilled the license requirements.

2/  Microsoft as part of fulfilling those license requirements has NOT passed the code off as their own and includes acknowledgements within Windows and on their publicly accessable web site.

You know that I am no Microsoft fanboy but I won't stand by when falsehoods are stated about them so unless you can back up these claims I suggest you stop making them.  I hope that in the future you will be willing to back up your claims with sources and specifics.  If not I will be forced to take actions that I would rather avoid.  Please don't force me to act.

Just as I won't knowingly tolerate lies about Linux I won't tolerate them against other groups or  companies, not even those I dislike. 

Just as you wish...   I'll remove the post, and as you are in charge here I won't mention this again, however that does not alter my opinion on the matter...

[Nemesis]

Just as you wish...   I'll remove the post, and as you are in charge here I won't mention this again, however that does not alter my opinion on the matter...

The problem is not the opinion but stating it in a manner that makes it appear that it is an established fact.  State it as a belief and acknowledge the lack of evidence to back it up and I won't have a problem with it as moderator.  As a poster I may well challenge your beliefs.

If you actually find evidence to back it up that I would be interested in.  But (my belief) is that it hasn't happened and therefore there is no such evidence.  I'd be fascinated to be proven wrong.

Microsoft has enough faults and guilt that has been documented and provable that allegeding things without facts actually makes them look the victim when they are far from the victim in the majority of cases.  If you want proof of Microsoft pirating software look for a lawsuit in France where Microsoft is convicted of that, but its not Open Source and its not networking or OS code.

[prometheus]

Just as you wish...   I'll remove the post, and as you are in charge here I won't mention this again, however that does not alter my opinion on the matter...

The problem is not the opinion but stating it in a manner that makes it appear that it is an established fact.  State it as a belief and acknowledge the lack of evidence to back it up and I won't have a problem with it as moderator.  As a poster I may well challenge your beliefs.

If you actually find evidence to back it up that I would be interested in.  But (my belief) is that it hasn't happened and therefore there is no such evidence.  I'd be fascinated to be proven wrong.

Microsoft has enough faults and guilt that has been documented and provable that allegeding things without facts actually makes them look the victim when they are far from the victim in the majority of cases.  If you want proof of Microsoft pirating software look for a lawsuit in France where Microsoft is convicted of that, but its not Open Source and its not networking or OS code.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1859439,00.asp

It's pretty common knowledge that microsoft have allowed OS code to find it's way into Closed operating systems...  While this is not illegal, it is not, IMO, really in the spirit of the GNU... 

[Nemesis]

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1859439,00.asp

It's pretty common knowledge that microsoft have allowed OS code to find it's way into Closed operating systems...  While this is not illegal, it is not, IMO, really in the spirit of the GNU... 

It may not be in the spirit of GNU but neither was the code.  The code was BSD and Microsoft did adhere to the agreement.

From the article you linked to:

Asked by eWEEK what Microsoft will give back to the open-source community for the MPI component, which is licensed under the BSD and not the GNU General Public License (GPL), Faenov said all fixes will be given back, while "we'll probably give the changes back as well."

Microsoft has also learned a lot about what is required for a software company to include an open-source technology component in its product, from ascertaining who has contributed that code to being able to make sure that all the licenses and permissions are in place, he said.

I wouldn't call it common knowledge but a common assumption among those who dislike Microsoft. 

The BSD Daemon -

[prometheus]

I wouldn't call it common knowledge but a common assumption among those who dislike Microsoft.

I dislike Microsoft, I make no secret of that...  One thing that I can back up with undeniable fact is that in the EULA that ships with windows, Microsoft contend that if I buy ten PC's, I should purchase ten identical copies of windows, one for each system, despite the fact that one disk could do them all... 

That, in my opinion is an absurd and inherently grossly inefficient way for anyone who does business using large numbers of PC's to work...  I paid 80 quid ($150) for my copy of Windows XP, so if I owned ten computers, we are talking about $1,500.00.  Now, if I ran a business using a couple of hundred PC's we are then into the realms of stupid amounts of money...  $30,000.00.  That's someone's salary, wasted on nothing but sheer greed!

If I were using PC's in this fashion, I would certainly not be using windows when there are many other proven networking solutions out there for business that are not subject to this kind of restriction...

[Just plain old Punisher]

Why shouldn't you have to pay for all 10 licenses? Microsoft does indeed give bulk discounting for multiple licenses.

[Nemesis]

I dislike Microsoft, I make no secret of that...  One thing that I can back up with undeniable fact is that in the EULA that ships with windows, Microsoft contend that if I buy ten PC's, I should purchase ten identical copies of windows, one for each system, despite the fact that one disk could do them all... 

Unless your software supplier says otherwise then legally you are bound that way due to copyright laws.  However Microsofts claim (made retroactively) that the OS is licensed to a given motherboard is something I think that they will lose on if it is ever fought out in court.

My big problem with EULAs is that they commonly are used to remove rights legally granted by the law from the customer and give more rights to the product creator.  I don't think that corporations should be allowed to write laws for themselves and with the EULA everytime they issue a patch they get to rewrite the EULA on the fly.

That, in my opinion is an absurd and inherently grossly inefficient way for anyone who does business using large numbers of PC's to work...  I paid 80 quid ($150) for my copy of Windows XP, so if I owned ten computers, we are talking about $1,500.00.  Now, if I ran a business using a couple of hundred PC's we are then into the realms of stupid amounts of money...  $30,000.00.  That's someone's salary, wasted on nothing but sheer greed!

If I were using PC's in this fashion, I would certainly not be using windows when there are many other proven networking solutions out there for business that are not subject to this kind of restriction...

I dislike Microsofts business practices but if you don't like their prices then choose from the alternatives.  Because I dislike their practices I have 2 of my machines running OpenSuSE and expect to move a 3rd that way in September.  Only my gaming machine stays Windows (2000 Pro).  When that ceases to work for games (or Microsoft manages to shut it down assuming the kill switch is real and works on 2000 Pro) that machine goes Linux as well.

Punisher is right Microsoft does office bulk deals.  There are 5 packs of Windows available from Microsoft where you get one copy and 5 License codes.  There are also site licenses of businesses.  Either of those would cut the cost / copy significantly.

Slowly businesses, government and private individuals are slipping the Microsoft leash.  One way to help is to let those proprietary software dealers know that you want to use a non Microsoft OS and will use whatever software works on that OS and though you would like  to continue using theirs you won't be able to unless they support the other OS that you move to.  One person doing so won't have much effect, but one multiplied by all those who want to move from Microsoft are a large enough number to at least cause software companies to think about it.

[prometheus]

It is an inefficient way of operating...  If I had ten CD players in my house, I wouldn't buy ten copies of Dark Side of The Moon either, nor would I be legally required to, and yet every member of Pink Floyd lives a very comfortable lifestyle from one person, one lisence...

Legally, microsoft are entitled to sell their product under this lisence I'm sure.  I choose to disregard their terms, and if and when I am taken to court over the matter, I will stand and be counted for my actions and challenge their practices...  As it happens, my spare machines all run Linux anyway at them moment, and there are a couple of old clangers kicking around that run Win 95, so this is not particularly an issue, but if and when I require two or more machines to run windows XP, I will use the same installation disk, becuase that is the most sensible and logical approach...

If one of you can point out an advantage that I have missed to having ten identical windows installation disks in my possession, I will take it on board of course, but until then I am forced to dismiss this "one box, one copy of windows" license as serving no other purpose but to satisfy one company's sheer greed...

[prometheus]

Punisher is right Microsoft does office bulk deals.  There are 5 packs of Windows available from Microsoft where you get one copy and 5 License codes.  There are also site licenses of businesses.  Either of those would cut the cost / copy significantly.

I trust that anyone can see my point is not the actual sum of money that is involved, but the fact that large sums of money are being wasted for no good reason...  Billions must be wasted every year across the Western World as businesses buy duplicate windows lisences that serve no obvious function...

One person / firm, one lisence would have given Bill Gates more money than he would ever have required to spend in a lifetime...

[Nemesis]

Punisher is right Microsoft does office bulk deals.  There are 5 packs of Windows available from Microsoft where you get one copy and 5 License codes.  There are also site licenses of businesses.  Either of those would cut the cost / copy significantly.

I trust that anyone can see my point is not the actual sum of money that is involved, but the fact that large sums of money are being wasted for no good reason...  Billions must be wasted every year across the Western World as businesses buy duplicate windows lisences that serve no obvious function...

One person / firm, one lisence would have given Bill Gates more money than he would ever have required to spend in a lifetime...

So who pays the extra for the support costs at that company with 10,000 machines and one licence?  Who pays the extra support costs of your multiple machines and one license? 

[Just plain old Punisher]

There is a big difference between a computer operating system and music.

What it comes down to is this: If you don't require everyone to have their own valid license, then you open the door for everyone to put as many copies of windows on as many computers as they like.

[MrCue]

What it comes down to is this: If you don't require everyone to have their own valid license,

ONE licence, to use the software for my own (or my familys) private use.
Much like i get with a music CD i buy.

then you open the door for everyone to put as many copies of windows on as many computers as they like.

So long as the computers remain in my (as in my households) possesion, why shouldn't i install it on all the computers i own.

I use a router to provide internet access to all 4 machines, but i dont have to pay my ISP 4x the monthly fee.

Thats the thing that p*sses me off about MS.
I have 3 computers, and a laptop in my house and for some unfathomable reason i am required to have 4 copies of XP.

Why can i not have 1 licence which allows me to install XP onto any computer that is mine, or my familys?

Its pure greed on MS's part, that is all.

If i could swap all the computers to linux, and still have everyone be able to run all the programs they need/want to i would do it in less than a heart beat.

[prometheus]

What it comes down to is this: If you don't require everyone to have their own valid license,

ONE licence, to use the software for my own (or my familys) private use.
Much like i get with a music CD i buy.

then you open the door for everyone to put as many copies of windows on as many computers as they like.

So long as the computers remain in my (as in my households) possesion, why shouldn't i install it on all the computers i own.

I use a router to provide internet access to all 4 machines, but i dont have to pay my ISP 4x the monthly fee.

Thats the thing that p*sses me off about MS.
I have 3 computers, and a laptop in my house and for some unfathomable reason i am required to have 4 copies of XP.

Why can i not have 1 licence which allows me to install XP onto any computer that is mine, or my familys?

Its pure greed on MS's part, that is all.

If i could swap all the computers to linux, and still have everyone be able to run all the programs they need/want to i would do it in less than a heart beat.

you are absolutely 100% right...

[Nemesis]

I have 3 computers, and a laptop in my house and for some unfathomable reason i am required to have 4 copies of XP.

Why can i not have 1 licence which allows me to install XP onto any computer that is mine, or my familys?

Its pure greed on MS's part, that is all.

When you have problems with the systems what do you do?  Do you search the Microsoft site and download patches?  With 4 computers you are 4 times as likely to do that and it costs Microsoft money when you do.   Why should you not pay extra to Microsoft when typically people with more than one computer cost Microsoft more in support than do those with one computer?

I do think that Microsoft and their 80% profit margin on Windows and office are overcharging.   They also don't make any real effort to tell the general public about their discounted 5 pack (which I believe would be cheaper for you than your 4 copies) where they provide one copy and 5 serial numbers. 

My response to Microsofts intrusive ways is to cease to buy Microsoft products (except the laptop came with XP - no one locally sells Windows free laptops that I am aware of).  It does mean that gaming is something that I am slowly abandoning as there aren't as many games on Linux but sometimes you must make sacrifices for your principles.

You object to Microsofts behaviour?  Fine.  Cease to be their customer.  Don't pirate their products, move away from them.  No Windows.  No MS Office.   No XBox.  You may have to give up things you don't want to but freedom has a price.

If you can't (or won't) move away then pay the price of being their captive.

[prometheus]

you open the door for everyone to put as many copies of windows on as many computers as they like.

That sounds fair to me... One license for one person...  You speak as if that is something wrong...

[Nemesis]

That sounds fair to me... One license for one person...  You speak as if that is something wrong...

My mothers computer is used by 6 or 7 people should they each have to have their own license to use it?  Is it one license per person?  Per family?  (Define family for this case).  Or 1 / computer?  Where exactly is the line?

[Nemesis]

If you don't like Microsoft don't steal from them, use Linux or Mac.  Using Linux or Mac actually hurts them more than piracy does so if you really dislike them and want to hurt them that is the better way to do it.  It is not only being more effective, it is also morally, ethically and legally superiour.

To hurt Microsoft:
1/ Don't use their software.
2/ Either buy a MAC or build your own computer (to avoid the Microsoft tax)
3/ Tell/help others to do the same migration
4/ Watch Microsoft tighten their grip (WGA anyone?) on their captive audience while more and more fall between the fingers and follow your trail.

As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."

5/ Gloat as you and others foul up his evil plans.

[Mr_Tricorder]

I'm still working on step 1 as I still have to rely on Windows for some things, but I've gotten all of the other steps down pretty well.

[Nemesis]

I'm still working on step 1 as I still have to rely on Windows for some things, but I've gotten all of the other steps down pretty well.

The underground railroad from Redmond has room for all, climb aboard.

[prometheus]

That sounds fair to me... One license for one person...  You speak as if that is something wrong...

My mothers computer is used by 6 or 7 people should they each have to have their own license to use it?  Is it one license per person?  Per family?  (Define family for this case).  Or 1 / computer?  Where exactly is the line?

I think a bit of common sense would tell you that is not what I meant...  If I have licensed a copy of XP, it stands to reason that I should have the right to let whom I want have the use of my computer(s)...

[Nemesis]

That sounds fair to me... One license for one person...  You speak as if that is something wrong...

My mothers computer is used by 6 or 7 people should they each have to have their own license to use it?  Is it one license per person?  Per family?  (Define family for this case).  Or 1 / computer?  Where exactly is the line?

I think a bit of common sense would tell you that is not what I meant...  If I have licensed a copy of XP, it stands to reason that I should have the right to let whom I want have the use of my computer(s)...

Then define your terms.  You said one license per person now your saying thats not what you meant.  So what do you actually mean? 

One per household perhaps?  What do you do when the household splits?  Child goes to college/university or sets up own home?  Divorce perhaps?  Who gets custody of the license and how do you ensure that it is followed?

What about support?  Those with multiple computers cost Microsoft more in support than those with 1 computer.

[prometheus]

That sounds fair to me... One license for one person...  You speak as if that is something wrong...

My mothers computer is used by 6 or 7 people should they each have to have their own license to use it?  Is it one license per person?  Per family?  (Define family for this case).  Or 1 / computer?  Where exactly is the line?

I think a bit of common sense would tell you that is not what I meant...  If I have licensed a copy of XP, it stands to reason that I should have the right to let whom I want have the use of my computer(s)...

Then define your terms.  You said one license per person now your saying thats not what you meant.  So what do you actually mean? 

One per household perhaps?  What do you do when the household splits?  Child goes to college/university or sets up own home?  Divorce perhaps?  Who gets custody of the license and how do you ensure that it is followed?

What about support?  Those with multiple computers cost Microsoft more in support than those with 1 computer.

Well personally I think all intellectual property should be distributed under a GNU style system, but I think our society will need to evolve a little further before we can go with that...

1) I think it is essential that all Operating Systems should be open sourced in that the source code sbould be available so it can be modified.  This does not necessarily mean that one should be a allowed to make copies of the installation disks and give them away to their mates for free without having made any meaningful fixes or changes, but this way advances can be brought to the table without personal greed and petty territorial instincts getting in the way.  An epsidoe of TNG I recently watched springs to mind...  "So you're Geordie La'Forge, the man who's been fouling up my engine designs?"

It is absurdly selfish and narrow minded to be so precious about your intellectual property that you won't let anyone else build on it...

2) I think that one license should cover all my computers, and anyone who wishes to use one or more of said computers with my permission, and if a household splits up it stands to reason that the lisence would go wherever the installation disk does, which would presumably be with the person who paid for it unless they wish to give it away...

[Mr_Tricorder]

How would you plan on enforcing a GNU-style OS license for every OS?  Most, if not all of us here live in countries that have a relatively loose hand on business practices and commerce.  Companies are free to place certain restrictions on their products and we are free to chose whether or not to buy those products.  If M$ doesn't want to open-source it's software, then it doesn't have to and has every right not to.  I agree with you that it would be better for everyone involved, but I understand and respect the decision for any software company to keep its software closed-source.

I agree with Nemesis about the license issue.  One computer/one license sounds reasonable to me and clearly defines what is and isn't a legal installation.  However, I think that license should be transferrable from computer to computer when you upgrade your system.  This is my biggest problem with Vista and it's motherboard=computer and "if motherboard=computer then new_motherboard=new_computer=new_license_needed" nonsense.

[E_Look]

I used to believe that it should be, at least for private customers, one license per household.  Then I realized some households are, well, huge.

I think it may be fairer that Microsoft, for example out of all software, especially OS writing companies, should allow up to two or three installations per CD purchased, like with the Student and Teacher edition of MS Office.  I think they did the right thing there.

Consider that a man with a wife and say two kids has to buy the same software FOUR TIMES; when added up after a while, it isn't exactly cheap.

I am literally still smarting over having bought Win XP TWICE because I built each of my kids a computer.  Each of those times, I don't recall any discounts or sales or specials.  I personally was fortunate enough that another family member, a bit of a computer enthusiast, had an extra real, legal copy that was just gathering dust, so he gave it to me (that guy sometimes has extras of video cards, even hard drives; man!).  I was already scanning the onlne vendor sites and various real stores for lowest prices on Win XP.  Otherwise, I would have bought it three times.

In those days that way predate Wintel-GUI systems, people lent out their DOS installation disks, antivirus programs (McAfee gave them out free), even Norton Utilities (when it was really great software) would be shared in the same house.  And I am from those days, so I suppose my views are colored by them.

Maybe PCs aren't really the way to go:
I should have bought a VAX or something and set up terminals all over my house.  At least the kids might learn the meaning of sharing.  They definitely won't from today's software purveyors.

[Nemesis]

They definitely need to promote the 5 pack.  They also need to set things up so you can download the patches and distribute them around your network without needing to download patches per machine.  I'm on dialup if I were patching all 4 machines on Win XP how long would it take and how much internet usage would I get in the meantime?

[E_Look]

Five!

I'd take it!

[Javora]

The last time I checked into the extra licences, each extra licence costs about $200USD for the WinXP Pro edition.  That is about a $100USD savings over the boxed edition.  Not a huge bargin IMHO but better than nothing at all.

[Just plain old Punisher]

Eh, each computer is getting the use of an operating system. So you should pay for each use

[Nemesis]

Eh, each computer is getting the use of an operating system. So you should pay for each use

Or use a free (and legal) Operating System.

[Just plain old Punisher]

Yup pretty much. Look, for 100 bucks or so you're getting the complete and total use of a computer operating system for as long as you like.

That's really not a bad deal. I've seen XP Home edition for 89 bucks.

People just don't want to pay for each license. They invent all sorts of excuses, but really when you're paying for that software you're paying for usage on that single computer.

Now, now one is gonna stop you from installing it on other computers, you just won't be able to get updates from Microsoft due to the fact that you used the one license key on multiple computers.

[Nemesis]

Yup pretty much. Look, for 100 bucks or so you're getting the complete and total use of a computer operating system for as long as you like.

Or at least until you need to reinstall and they have turned off the activation servers.  Then if you want to continue to use it you must do an illegal (in the U.S. under the DMCA) hack to continue to use the software that you bought and paid for.

[Just plain old Punisher]

Really? All I had to do was enter in my license key. What if you don't have an internet connection?

[E_Look]

They do have a 800 number...

[Commander Maxillius]

Microsoft needs to clarify that you're not actually -purchasing- anything but the 10-cent piece of plastic.  The stuff on the plastic is what you're -leasing- from Microsoft, and it needs to be advertized as such.  I think they'd get around much of the complaints from people who wish to do what they plase with stuff they bought and paid for when in turn they're only leasing a bit of software that they have very little actual rights to.

[E_Look]

That is a clear way to put it, Max.

[Commander Maxillius]

The problem is that no one would buy their stuff since who wants to buy a machine but lease the software to run it?  It would be like owning your car but leasing the engine and transmission.

[E_Look]

I do sympathize with the need to have some control over your intellectual property and content, and admit that too many people just want to be freeloaders, but again, those of us who want to do things above board and with propriety (always) get punished.

My opinion also is that if you pay TO BUY something, you should own it.  Otherwise, they'd better ask me to SIGN a contract!

[Nemesis]

My opinion also is that if you pay TO BUY something, you should own it.  Otherwise, they'd better ask me to SIGN a contract!

DING!

They might also have trouble winning in court.  The retailer who sells it does not indicate to the customer that it is not a sale of a product - deceptive sales practices are illegal in most areas. 

There are other elements that are a problem legally speaking.  Has the retailer actually been explicitly been given the license to sell licenses by Microsoft?  If not the whole sale is illegal if it is a sale of licenses.  There is also the fact that Microsoft makes a commitment in the EULA that if you don't agree the retailer will refund it - but does not make an agreement with the retailer to actually do so and doesn't refund the retailer if they do.

[Nemesis]

Link to full article

Microsoft has been fined 280.5m euros ($357m; £194m) by the European Commission for failing to comply with an anti-competition ruling.

EU regulators also warned Microsoft it could face new fines of 3m euros a day.

EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said she had "no alternative but to levy penalty payments" against Microsoft, adding that "no company is above the law".

"I regret that, more than two years after the decision... Microsoft has still not put an end to its illegal conduct," Ms Kroes said.

Brussels had warned Microsoft in December that it would face fines of 2m euros a day if the firm failed to meet the commission's demands.

[Nemesis]

Link to full article

It seems that when Microsoft was looking to build its new ODF plugin, it took a short cut. It seems to have grabbed some code from the OpenDocument Fellowship's program that converts ODF to HTML, written by J. David Eisenberg. His code is released under a dual license, the LGPL and the Apache 2.0 license. Microsoft has put it into its ODF plugin, which is licensed under the BSD license.

There seems to be some doubt as to whether Microsoft operated within the law on this one.  This may be a case of copyright violation as I am fairly sure that LGPL code cannot be moved to BSD license without the prior permission of the author, the Apache license I don't know about but they don't mention it as being allowable on their site.

[Nemesis]

Link to full article

It seems that when Microsoft was looking to build its new ODF plugin, it took a short cut. It seems to have grabbed some code from the OpenDocument Fellowship's program that converts ODF to HTML, written by J. David Eisenberg. His code is released under a dual license, the LGPL and the Apache 2.0 license. Microsoft has put it into its ODF plugin, which is licensed under the BSD license.

There seems to be some doubt as to whether Microsoft operated within the law on this one.  This may be a case of copyright violation as I am fairly sure that LGPL code cannot be moved to BSD license without the prior permission of the author, the Apache license I don't know about but they don't mention it as being allowable on their site.

Current version of the story.

1/ Microsoft is backing the plugin not controlling it
2/ The actual code "acquistion" was not done by Microsoft
3/ The author was finally contacted (as a result of that article) and gave his permission to put it under a "BSD like" license.

So the issue is resolved.

[Dash Jones]

There is a big difference between a computer operating system and music.

What it comes down to is this: If you don't require everyone to have their own valid license, then you open the door for everyone to put as many copies of windows on as many computers as they like.

What's the difference between computer OS's, computer software, and music under copyright law?

Not much that I can see.

I play by the rulesthat MS has set out, but right now I'd say Prom has made his point better.  If the RIAA had it's way, the same would apply to music, and in fact, in their eyes DOES already apply.  Because you ignore the RIAA rules on licensing and fees if you play something on more that one system, or where more than one person can hear it, doesn't mean that their rules are any different than Microsofts, or that they wouldn't want to enforce such things if they could (and in fact some have gone through lengths to prevent you from reproducing the material to the point of insanity...in such companies such as...SONY).

[Dash Jones]

Microsoft needs to clarify that you're not actually -purchasing- anything but the 10-cent piece of plastic.  The stuff on the plastic is what you're -leasing- from Microsoft, and it needs to be advertized as such.  I think they'd get around much of the complaints from people who wish to do what they plase with stuff they bought and paid for when in turn they're only leasing a bit of software that they have very little actual rights to.

So does that mean rights management comes into play?  AFterall, those record companies only "RENT" or lease the rights of an artist to distribute and make money from...but if we used those same rules in the OS world it would mean that by leasing the Windows OS you basically could do almost anything you wanted...definately a hell of alot more than what MS allows in their EULA currently.  Does that mean I could sue MS for breach of Rights management aka the Record companies can do to the actual creators of music should they try something outside of the normal rights management unless it is observed in signing by two witnesses and a lawyer (which I can assure you each EULA is not) and still some of it would fall under the artists/rights of handler even if the contract tried to specify otherwise.

[Nemesis]

What's the difference between computer OS's, computer software, and music under copyright law?

Not much that I can see.

Better compare it with a book, a painting or a statue, they were the works covered by copyright in the beginning and show the intent of the initiators of copyright protection.

I play by the rulesthat MS has set out

I'd rather play by the law of the land not arbitrary extensions created by each company and claimed to be the law.

I'd like to see the U.S. government (and other national governments) revert to this principal:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

Notice the limited times, longer than a human lifetime is effectively not limited.  Longer than the lifespan of the materials (or storage format for digital) it is created of is effectively unlimited as well.  Also I'd love to see that to authors and inventors restored and no "exclusive" long term licensing allowed.

[MrCue]

I would like to see the arbitary re-writing of laws by EULAs deemed illegal.

Why should a software company be allowed to change the laws (applying to it) at a whim, when real laws can take years to be passed as legal.

[Nemesis]

I would like to see the arbitary re-writing of laws by EULAs deemed illegal.

Why should a software company be allowed to change the laws (applying to it) at a whim, when real laws can take years to be passed as legal.

Instead slowly politicians are passsing laws that confirm that authority for the companies. 

Sometimes I think that governments are adopting the slogan "By the Corporation for the Corporation".

[GE-Raven]

The problem is that no one would buy their stuff since who wants to buy a machine but lease the software to run it?  It would be like owning your car but leasing the engine and transmission.

Actually I think it would be a closer thing to say you own your car but you have to "lease" your insurance in order for it to be useful.  Oh wait that is what we do.

Or better yet... you own your car, but lease your licesnsing for the legal operation of that car on public roadways....

hmmm ... sounds like what we have there too...

Hey I have no problem with as many people that want to never us Microsoft again... however I always laugh at people the vilify the company that pretty much single-handedly accelerated the PC development by a factor of 10.  Bill convinced the average "joe public" they needed a computer.  Without that there is no internet... without that there is no computer market...

To be honest... I understand people not wanting to use microsoft... more power to them.  However as I work in the world of computers... I have yet to meet a person in IT that honestly doesn't believe that  microsoft is a pretty fine company, and supports their users (business in this case) well.  I have met a few "Open source only" types... and in every case their users are suffering a great deal and productivity from computer work is probably about 1/2 of what it should be. 

Why?  because they saved the money on the licensing... but forgot to respend it on training.  So you get cheap software that no one (but the support people) can use.

Just my own personal observations.... but hey what do I know...

GE-Raven

[E_Look]

Hey,  you know, you're right...

... on the business user level.

But for us poorer folk who are home, small office, education/reserarch users, they can be a bear.  I am really fairly poor (by Western standards, anyway) and it galls me that I had to pay THREE TIMES to install WinXP on the three little PCs on my el cheapo home network (my PC, and my kids' PCs).  I mean, it's my home!  It's not the New York Public Library, the branch near major campuses and high schools and old folks or something.  It's the same household and we don't get a troop of kids or others coming in to use them at all.  I feel the same way about games... though what kids do, sharing them among the computers of their friends, is not right nor fair to the publishing, developing, and retail companies... and other software, as MS Office, etc.

Even antivirus software and antispyware programs should allow a "site" license, i.e., one that allows REASONABLE multiple installations within the same home, assuming they don't have fifteen children or have an army of parents, aunts, uncles, and grandparents living there all with their own PCs.

MS has taken a step in the right direction with their Student and Teacher Edition of MS Office- three installations allowed per set of CDs.  I really don't think this would truly hurt their bottom line; but it DOES ease the burden on us little people.

[GE-Raven]

The problem E-Look is at the implementation end.  What model do I (if I am microsoft) use to allow you your 3 computer site license and the Jones Family 5... and The Brady's need nine (Does Alice count as family?).

If they get 9 machines for $99 that is pretty sweet.  You are getting robbed at $33 bucks a computer in comparison.

There in lies the problem for "small site" site licensing.  To that end It is "better" and easier to do a "low cost" home user version of the OS.  While $89 bucks a machine is steep.  I would point out that you have options.  Do the kids HAVE to be running anything more then win98?  Inside a firewall and well configured it would be perfectly safe inside a lan.

Just because there is Windows Vista... doesn't mean you need it.

Heck, my brother has a MS-Dos 6.22 machine in his house... just perfect for those old school dos games.

In the greater scheme of computing... $99 for a OS isn't that big a deal.  It is MS Office for $199 that is starting to hurt.

GE-Raven

[E_Look]

I am the one who could be perfectly happy with Win98.  It's the kids that clamor for the latest tech (games and all that rot).       

Granted, in comparison to office suites operating systems are cheap, but then let me drop the use of WinXP (I'm NOT going to upgrade to Vista unless'n'Igottadoitorelse) as an example and say MS Office or one other more expensive software.

I can happily go back to my old DOS WordStar (still got a copy somewhere... ) under DOS 6.22, 5.0, 4.0, whatever (well, not 5.0; it was gutted of several useful commands).  I DON'T need a GUI.  I can function without a mouse; I love keyboard shortcuts.  Why, doing so would allow me to use again the original GOOD versions of Norton Utilities  .

It's really the kids that drive this stuff in my house (glad that they're not exactly old enough to be hip to the CPU scene and know the latest and greatest; they're happy as clams with their Athlon XP Barton core 2500+'s; though, they do have some inkling about hot vid cards... not good.  ).  They wanted WinXP over 98.  They are still using Office 97.  Mine got upgraded only because after a HD crash, my reinstalled XP didn't work well with my older CDROM and DVD drives and couldn't execute any files on the Office 97 CD.    (Must be all the updates to XP!)  Otherwise, I'd still be happily using it, too.

Yow.  Multiply everything by some factor greater than 2.  One does *begin* (who'm I kidding?!  I felt it on day one!) the hit.

MS DOESN'T have to have variable license sizes; it can set a number, and I personally think at least two or three or maybe up to four or five is decent, and if you have a Brady Bunch, then you buy two or three copies.  For a large family, that IS fair, as you'd have to buy more food, clothing, fuel, etc.  But to make EVERY SINGLE member, preschoolers or elementary school kids or parents alike, pay for a copy on EVERY machine is a bit steep.

[Dracho]

You know, the Nazis single handed advanced modern warfare and rocket science a good 50 years, but when it came down to it, they were still a bunch of asshats who used crappy tactics on the competetion.

The ends doesn't always justify the means.

[E_Look]

 

Um... you referrring to me, or to MS?

[Dash Jones]

The problem is that no one would buy their stuff since who wants to buy a machine but lease the software to run it?  It would be like owning your car but leasing the engine and transmission.

Actually I think it would be a closer thing to say you own your car but you have to "lease" your insurance in order for it to be useful.  Oh wait that is what we do.

Or better yet... you own your car, but lease your licesnsing for the legal operation of that car on public roadways....

hmmm ... sounds like what we have there too...

Hey I have no problem with as many people that want to never us Microsoft again... however I always laugh at people the vilify the company that pretty much single-handedly accelerated the PC development by a factor of 10.  Bill convinced the average "joe public" they needed a computer.  Without that there is no internet... without that there is no computer market...

To be honest... I understand people not wanting to use microsoft... more power to them.  However as I work in the world of computers... I have yet to meet a person in IT that honestly doesn't believe that  microsoft is a pretty fine company, and supports their users (business in this case) well.  I have met a few "Open source only" types... and in every case their users are suffering a great deal and productivity from computer work is probably about 1/2 of what it should be. 

Why?  because they saved the money on the licensing... but forgot to respend it on training.  So you get cheap software that no one (but the support people) can use.

Just my own personal observations.... but hey what do I know...

GE-Raven

Haven't been in business long eh?

I found that removing Windows from most of the computers and installing a internet datalink which ONLY allows them to peruse products whilst selling, OR for those who do use a Computer for more than that to only have limited access, that it SAVED a lot.  Why...those dang stupid Window games and people installing spyware, gonzo buddy or whatever it's called, and everything else under the sun and using OUR computers to play instead of work with.  Amazingly, limiting access also suddenly cut down on how much wear and tear our tech department was doing and how much they had to do "repairs" on computers.

However, I didn't touch certain areas of the company such as the money management...and a few other areas in the company.  But certain areas WERE having problems when I first started there, in the area I was working for the time I was there.

I suspect Windows actually leads to a LOT of wasted time in some instances.

My father on the otherhand was MUCH worse.  He of course banned all playing of games (though enforcing it is another thing), however where he works and when he visited for a while he had ALL stations facing a door or open area so the person could be observed whatever they were doing, AND unless they were REALLY doing a good job, if he caught them abusing company property (such as computers) and were disposable...they were fired.

I don't think I quite agree with his philosophy, but then they were always rather tyranical when I was at home with them about computer usage there as well (I don't know how many of you remember when I was a youngster and visits to their place and how they acted towards internet usage).

As far as MS goes, I can actually understand their desire to have only one OS per machine.  What GALLS me is that they have you authenticate or they lock you out of your own system.  What happens when their support for XP ends.  Some idiots say that MS will give a universal unlock code...I think they are just that...idiots.  I expect instead it will be a forced upgrade instead.  If your XP goes belly up (and I've HAD THAT HAPPEN), you can't reinstall, even if it's on the same computer at that point...and you are SOL.  Instead you'll have to pay 99 - 199 for that "upgrade" to Vista instead.

That's why I've ALWAYS been against the authentication process, because it really can work against the customer.  In a BAD way.

[Dash Jones]

I am the one who could be perfectly happy with Win98.  It's the kids that clamor for the latest tech (games and all that rot).       

Granted, in comparison to office suites operating systems are cheap, but then let me drop the use of WinXP (I'm NOT going to upgrade to Vista unless'n'Igottadoitorelse) as an example and say MS Office or one other more expensive software.

I can happily go back to my old DOS WordStar (still got a copy somewhere... ) under DOS 6.22, 5.0, 4.0, whatever (well, not 5.0; it was gutted of several useful commands).  I DON'T need a GUI.  I can function without a mouse; I love keyboard shortcuts.  Why, doing so would allow me to use again the original GOOD versions of Norton Utilities  .

It's really the kids that drive this stuff in my house (glad that they're not exactly old enough to be hip to the CPU scene and know the latest and greatest; they're happy as clams with their Athlon XP Barton core 2500+'s; though, they do have some inkling about hot vid cards... not good.  ).  They wanted WinXP over 98.  They are still using Office 97.  Mine got upgraded only because after a HD crash, my reinstalled XP didn't work well with my older CDROM and DVD drives and couldn't execute any files on the Office 97 CD.    (Must be all the updates to XP!)  Otherwise, I'd still be happily using it, too.

Yow.  Multiply everything by some factor greater than 2.  One does *begin* (who'm I kidding?!  I felt it on day one!) the hit.

MS DOESN'T have to have variable license sizes; it can set a number, and I personally think at least two or three or maybe up to four or five is decent, and if you have a Brady Bunch, then you buy two or three copies.  For a large family, that IS fair, as you'd have to buy more food, clothing, fuel, etc.  But to make EVERY SINGLE member, preschoolers or elementary school kids or parents alike, pay for a copy on EVERY machine is a bit steep.

Actually there's linux, and the one's I've used of Linux allows the usage of a mouse.  Just a heads up in case you ever decide to use linux.

[E_Look]

Nemesis-  I had no problem in the old days with command line UNIX.  I have never tried LINUX.

Dash-  To be fair, when my HD croaked (one sound it made did kind of sound like a croak), all I had to do was telephone MS and tell them my HD croaked.  It was over in a minute (after the roughly three to five I had to hold for) and I was able to re-register the same CD's re-installation on my new HD.  It was exactly painless.

But I can see how if authentication is done with everything some companies may not (want to) make it so easy for you when you have technical problems and have to reinstall.

[Nemesis]

Nemesis-  I had no problem in the old days with command line UNIX.  I have never tried LINUX.

Try one of the LiveCDs they allow you to run the OS right off the CD or DVD without effecting the HD.  Ubuntu or its sibling Kubuntu have a good reputation and you can use the commandline or GUI as you like.

[GE-Raven]

Haven't been in business long eh?

I found that removing Windows from most of the computers and installing a internet datalink which ONLY allows them to peruse products whilst selling, OR for those who do use a Computer for more than that to only have limited access, that it SAVED a lot.  Why...those dang stupid Window games and people installing spyware, gonzo buddy or whatever it's called, and everything else under the sun and using OUR computers to play instead of work with.  Amazingly, limiting access also suddenly cut down on how much wear and tear our tech department was doing and how much they had to do "repairs" on computers.

However, I didn't touch certain areas of the company such as the money management...and a few other areas in the company.  But certain areas WERE having problems when I first started there, in the area I was working for the time I was there.

I suspect Windows actually leads to a LOT of wasted time in some instances.

My father on the otherhand was MUCH worse.  He of course banned all playing of games (though enforcing it is another thing), however where he works and when he visited for a while he had ALL stations facing a door or open area so the person could be observed whatever they were doing, AND unless they were REALLY doing a good job, if he caught them abusing company property (such as computers) and were disposable...they were fired.

I don't think I quite agree with his philosophy, but then they were always rather tyranical when I was at home with them about computer usage there as well (I don't know how many of you remember when I was a youngster and visits to their place and how they acted towards internet usage).

As far as MS goes, I can actually understand their desire to have only one OS per machine.  What GALLS me is that they have you authenticate or they lock you out of your own system.  What happens when their support for XP ends.  Some idiots say that MS will give a universal unlock code...I think they are just that...idiots.  I expect instead it will be a forced upgrade instead.  If your XP goes belly up (and I've HAD THAT HAPPEN), you can't reinstall, even if it's on the same computer at that point...and you are SOL.  Instead you'll have to pay 99 - 199 for that "upgrade" to Vista instead.

That's why I've ALWAYS been against the authentication process, because it really can work against the customer.  In a BAD way.

Actually Dash I am fairly certain I have been in it a bit longer than you might think...   

However you seem to be ignoring the fact that with MS I control the user rights.  Users install nothing if I don't want to allow them too.  I control the internet, the ports open, the bandwidth.  Hell I can even limit how many e-mails a person is allowed to get.  Granted that gem is actually in the Novell Realm. 

However let me explain it this way.  I work for a college.  Our business is teaching.... more over one department teaches Computer Graphics and Interactive Media.  Now I dunno about you but I doubt I would be getting many students to enroll in the program that had all open source software.  Better yet, I would have a hell of a time finding those kids jobs.  I have to be able to support what the predominant "industry standard" dejour is.  I am sure if all I needed the computers to do was one thing and one thing only I could avoid all sorts of pitfalls.  However that ain't happening any time soon...  CGIM has about 50 applications that are on a lab image.  From 3dsMax, to Adobe Illustrator, to Quark, to Frontpage, Word, Excel, and even Half-Life 2 (Game design class).  That is one department with 3 labs of 15 machines.  (Each lab has different sets of software)

Then in Science I have the Molecular Modelling software (Molsoft) that is insanely delicate.  Not to mention the 20 other programs that are specific to that department.

Then English, Seminary, Music, Athletics, Computer Science, Business...

I hear all sorts of "1 job wonder" stories from all the ABM people (Anything But Microsoft).  However these people fail to recognize, that in the real world people use, like, love, and buy MS in mass quantities.  This is unlikely to change in the very near future.  Forcing an anti-MS objective on my work place is would be as counter-productive as telling a factory union that all their members had until Wednesday to convert to Islam.

Furthermore in my experience I have found the true "open minded" profesionals that give MS their due, and use Novell, Linux, and a toaster oven if it is the best for the job to be much happier than the person who will break their neck to avoid the MS banner just because they don't like William Gates III.

Again this is just my opinion...

I use what works, I balance money vs. easy of use and amount of support required.  I have unlimitied demands place on very finite resources.  This means that I would be an idiot to not use MS in a lot of cases.

GE-Raven

[Dash Jones]

Actually, believe it or not I have a great respect for Bill Gates and think the guy is great.

There are some around him that are slime...but I digress...it's not nice to talk about them.


I don't go out of my way to avoid Windows.

The specific statement you made that I should have clarified that showed you hadn't been in the business long was this

I have met a few "Open source only" types... and in every case their users are suffering a great deal and productivity from computer work is probably about 1/2 of what it should be. 

While I haven't been only Open source, by moving computer to open source from Windows, and placing restrictions on those that did have Windows...(with some exceptions as I stated, and yes IT was one of those exceptions, seeing they were overseeing it all anyways) we actually made MORE than when it was Windows...so by applying your statement, if they only got 1/2 our productivity with this new set up, we must have only gotten 1/4 of our productivity with a Windows ONLY policy.

I know several companies that are doing excellent without Windows.  I'll be sure to tell the Waltons next time however that your opinion of some of their Machines is that they are not being productive (it should be noted they also use Windows extensively as well, but also have things without windows).

In otherwords, I don't know of a single business that lost productivity because of non-usage of Windows, but I DO know of companies that lost productivity because of the way they implemented Windows.

As long as the computer does the task they need it too, it is productive, Windows or not.  Most sales associates I've seen don't need to have some whizzed out computer, they just need something to tell them inventory and where something can be located.  Anymore than that and you start to lose productivity from them.  Some places need more than that and need Windows, I'll grant you that...but claiming that those that don't lose productivity...in my experience as long as the head management knows what they are doing, that is actually a false statement.  (Now if they have no idea what they are doing in the first place, and no reasons or goals of why they are switching and what they want to accomplish with that...then yes...I can see it happening...but with those making a knowlegeable choice...it is almost ALWAYS more productive).  Hence the problems with your all encompassing and very generalized statement.

[Commander Maxillius]

If I could get a hold of some old PII's and copies of Win98 I'd be in hog-heaven for an OP-game lab!!


Can you imagine the carnage.... wait...

make that PIII's   I remember the horrible time my PII 400 had with 3 ships lol