Microsoft Plays Hardball: SDK EULA Prohibits Open Source
Exactly how will Microsoft explain this as a reasonable EULA? http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-06-20-018-20-NW-MS-SW -Tim -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy R. Butler Universal Networks Information Tech. Consultant Christian Web Services Since 1996 ICQ #12495932 AIM: Uninettm An Authorized IPSwitch Reseller tbutler@uninetsolutions.com http://www.uninetsolutions.com ============== "Information Powered by Innovation" ==============
On Thursday 21 June 2001 21:33, Curtis Rey wrote:
This is one of the more blatant examples of M$ fear.
Well, as James Caan once said, as he turned around to face the interviewer with his eyes crossed, "Here's how I look at it." Microsoft has id'd the competitors in a formal manner, eh? The list of official competitors can now be attached to any and all correspondence re: MS. This, of course, makes it an easier argument for companies to immediately convene their committees to evaluate their in-house IT requirements. A hospital that is locked into MS needs to seriously consider the impact of potential isolation from vendors that might lose access to servicing their needs. Costly considerations are coming up, folks. There's a hefty cost to staying with MS, now, that wasn't there before. Excellent if you're interested in convincing enterprises to make the move to Open Source. Just a thought, Tom
I'm sure this isn't legally enforceable in most jurisdictions, like many other aspects of M$' EULAs. JDL "Timothy R.Butler" wrote:
Exactly how will Microsoft explain this as a reasonable EULA?
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-06-20-018-20-NW-MS-SW
While always thoroughly approving of free software, I did at one time think
some
of the MS haters on this list went a bit far and were a bit paranoid.
I hereby issue a full and public apology to those people, and join them in
their view
that MS are essentially evil.
I particularly like the Brave New World style propagandist content of 'viral
software',
perhaps the nicest example of FUD we have yet seen.
'Beware, beware, O innocent ones, your children may become infected with
free
things! What will they do if they are not allowed to pay us megabucks, poor
creatures'
Watch out for feeling happy, too - remember, warm human emotions are making
no money for our company. Be miserable. Buy our kit.
That they are even attempting to do this is just contemptible.
Best to all,
Fergus
----- Original Message -----
From: "John D Lamb"
I'm sure this isn't legally enforceable in most jurisdictions, like many other aspects of M$' EULAs. JDL
"Timothy R.Butler" wrote:
Exactly how will Microsoft explain this as a reasonable EULA?
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-06-20-018-20-NW-MS-SW
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com
I takes many people some time to realise this, MS is, like Fergus says, evil. Not only for their attacks on our privacy, the Free Software community and there just basically disgusting tactics... But has anyone noticed how many times they've been in court for being racists... According to one of the more recent law-suits, MS only likes white males for key functions. Especially black people are given a hard time by them. I would ask anyone, whatever system they like to use, if these ideas are something they find acceptable. IS this what we want our children to be like? I personally make it a point never to take any of my business, for whatever reason, to a company that promotes racism in any (even small) way. And I hope that, in the future, a majority of people will think this way. Kind regards Guy
>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
While always thoroughly approving of free software, I did at one time
On 21/06/2001, 10:31:06, "Fergus Wilde"
some of the MS haters on this list went a bit far and were a bit paranoid.
I hereby issue a full and public apology to those people, and join them in their view that MS are essentially evil.
I particularly like the Brave New World style propagandist content of 'viral software', perhaps the nicest example of FUD we have yet seen.
'Beware, beware, O innocent ones, your children may become infected with free things! What will they do if they are not allowed to pay us megabucks, poor creatures'
Watch out for feeling happy, too - remember, warm human emotions are making no money for our company. Be miserable. Buy our kit.
That they are even attempting to do this is just contemptible.
Best to all, Fergus
----- Original Message ----- From: "John D Lamb"
Cc: "SuSE Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 7:55 AM Subject: Re: [SLE] Microsoft Plays Hardball: SDK EULA Prohibits Open Source
I'm sure this isn't legally enforceable in most jurisdictions, like many other aspects of M$' EULAs. JDL
"Timothy R.Butler" wrote:
Exactly how will Microsoft explain this as a reasonable EULA?
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-06-20-018-20-NW-MS-SW
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com
hi all, uhhh....wow..... i can not believe this is true..... im in a bad dream here ?? does m$ really try to say "you can use our sdk (sigh!) only to produce comercialy usable software" ?? a software development kit ??? tied to only one purpose ??? does this mean in fact, that, if anyone is making a little tool/app/whatever can not give it away for free as long as it is made with their sdk ? its now clear how is *against* intellectual property....... very clear..... greets, chris (now really scared) Am Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2001 05:58 schrieb Timothy R.Butler:
Exactly how will Microsoft explain this as a reasonable EULA?
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-06-20-018-20-NW-MS-SW
-Tim
-- visit me at http://mamalala.de
I think you misunderstand 9at least from my reading of it). You can give
software produced with the SDK away. You can ever give away the source
code, as long as it isn't distributed under the GPL.
alan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Klippel"
** from the outer limits of space and time electrons arranged
themselves into a message from Curtis Rey
This is one of the more blatant examples of M$ fear
YOu thought the WOrd "Embrace and Extend" As used by M$ in variuos news releases mean they aren't trying to choke the life out of it w/ those "embraces" <G> j
The silliest thing is that even LGPL is banned, even though it expressly allows likning against closed-source binaries. This EULA isn't a license, it's a marketing scheme. Regards Anders On Thursday 21 June 2001 21:34, Alan Lenton wrote:
I think you misunderstand 9at least from my reading of it). You can give software produced with the SDK away. You can ever give away the source code, as long as it isn't distributed under the GPL.
alan
----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Klippel"
To: "Timothy R.Butler" ; "SuSE Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 3:29 PM Subject: Re: [SLE] Microsoft Plays Hardball: SDK EULA Prohibits Open Source | hi all, | | uhhh....wow..... i can not believe this is true..... im in a bad dream
here ??
| does m$ really try to say "you can use our sdk (sigh!) only to produce | comercialy usable software" ?? | a software development kit ??? tied to only one purpose ??? | does this mean in fact, that, if anyone is making a little
tool/app/whatever
| can not give it away for free as long as it is made with their sdk ? | | its now clear how is *against* intellectual property....... very
clear.....
| greets, | | chris | (now really scared)
-- Suche Nullen! Götzen-Dämmerung - oder wie man mit dem Pingvin philosophirt
hi alan, from what i read the say : " By way of example but not limitation of the foregoing, Recipient shall not distribute the Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with any Publicly Available Software. " and then later are definig what this publicly available software is. there they say for example "......or (C) be redistributable at no charge." then they linup alot of licenses. lpgl, gpl, sun, netscape (sigh!)...... semms that only valid could be the bsd license, beside the microsoft crap. as i guess that the compiled program relies/uses/has linked in librarys and functions of the msfc, then all these statements simply say you can not produce software and give it away for free while (saving your right on *your* intellectual property) that no other makes money out of it. as this is what the bsd license allow , this license is excluded from the list. if i read this, and a little between the lines, thyre (a) trying to suggest that linux/free software has an virulent (in means of a virus) attitude, and (b) they say "if you make software with our sdk, you only should (could ?) sell it or if you really want to give it out for free, then only if others (and ms, of course) are allowed to make alot of money out of it" btw: but for me this statements from ms in the past are great news for me, because i see an increasing in my jobs, more and more people wnat to have linux boxes/networks installed. and guess, the ones who switched are happy now, while i can definitely see that there is fewer to administer/maintain (if not, than i could not have time for others to set up their stuff, but i have....) greets, chris Am Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2001 21:34 schrieb Alan Lenton:
I think you misunderstand 9at least from my reading of it). You can give software produced with the SDK away. You can ever give away the source code, as long as it isn't distributed under the GPL.
alan
----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Klippel"
To: "Timothy R.Butler" ; "SuSE Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 3:29 PM Subject: Re: [SLE] Microsoft Plays Hardball: SDK EULA Prohibits Open Source | hi all, | | uhhh....wow..... i can not believe this is true..... im in a bad dream
here ??
| does m$ really try to say "you can use our sdk (sigh!) only to produce | comercialy usable software" ?? | a software development kit ??? tied to only one purpose ??? | does this mean in fact, that, if anyone is making a little
tool/app/whatever
| can not give it away for free as long as it is made with their sdk ? | | its now clear how is *against* intellectual property....... very
clear.....
| greets, | | chris | (now really scared)
-- visit me at http://mamalala.de
This is one of the more blatant examples of M$ fear. It's not reasonable. I see that M$ will utilze OSource at their leisure, but only they can decide when to impliment it. This basically setup anyone that tries to port and application or program that was built with the SDK and then ports it to LInux or any other OSource product up for a big lawsuit? Another attempt at M$ to try and kill OSource/Linux. But IMHO it just show how disjointed the company is on the percieved threat (that's is evidently more real than percieved). They use OSource but hate anyone else using it. I'd say they're running scarred and it's showing more each day. Curtis On Wednesday 20 June 2001 10:58 pm, Timothy R.Butler wrote:
Exactly how will Microsoft explain this as a reasonable EULA?
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-06-20-018-20-NW-MS-SW
-Tim
Yes, I think M$' embraces amount to a bug hug from a 2500 lbs polar bear. May look cuddly, but will break your back in under a second. New dictionary definition in the universe of M$: Embrace - to own, control, eliminate, extinquish, subdue, market exclusively; ex: "We embrace technologies such as Kerberos in order to modify it, fold into to our products, and use it as a tool to force consumers to upgrade or purchase our products at a premium". Cheers, Curtis On Thursday 21 June 2001 02:43 pm, jfweber@eternal.net wrote:
** from the outer limits of space and time electrons arranged themselves into a message from Curtis Rey
on Thu, 21 Jun 2001 23:33:30 -0500 Earth Standard Time This is one of the more blatant examples of M$ fear
YOu thought the WOrd "Embrace and Extend" As used by M$ in variuos news releases mean they aren't trying to choke the life out of it w/ those "embraces" <G>
j
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the archives at http://lists.suse.com
hehe, good catch! That one slipped right by me, Opps. but it still applies - and that's even more Freudian. Cheers On Thursday 21 June 2001 05:04 pm, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Friday 22 June 2001 23:14, Curtis Rey wrote:
Yes, I think M$' embraces amount to a bug hug from a 2500 lbs polar bear.
^^^
Freudian slip? :)
participants (10)
-
Alan Lenton
-
Anders Johansson
-
Christian Klippel
-
Curtis Rey
-
Fergus Wilde
-
Guy Van Sanden
-
jfweber@eternal.net
-
John D Lamb
-
Timothy R.Butler
-
tom poe