Topic: If its good enough for Microsoft ...

[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.