Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft FrontPage License Prohibits Anti-Microsoft Speech

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the you-gotta-be-kidding dept.

According to this story running at Info World, the license from FrontPage 2002 contains a clause that says 'You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services ...' An unfortunate clause that will prevent me from my long term plan of migrating Slashdot to Frontpage (cough). There's lots of other nastiness in this article too. Can anyone find that specific clause? Can anyone find the EULA itself? Update: 09/20 18:10 GMT by T : According to reader bteutsch "FWIW, the clause appears only in the EULA agreement for use of the FrontPage Logo, not with the product or server extensions license."

1 of 548 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Maybe a good thing? by Jerf · · Score: 5, Interesting
    'IANAL, but isn't there something in contract law that says that if you put a clause in a contract that is illegal, then the contract is null and void on its face. For example, I can't put a clause in a contract that says that you will become my slave if you agree to the contract. Slavery is illegal and no contract is allowed to supercede that (AFAIK).'

    'So the fact that this exists, does it not render the license restrictions that MS is putting into place null and void? In other words, has MS just ceded their rights to control Front Page?'

    IANAL, but you don't need to be a lawyer for this.

    First, as one person pointed out, licenses invariably have clauses that say if one part is found invalid, then only that part is invalidated, not the whole thing. Second, even if what you said is true, then what is nullified is the license. That doesn't mean Microsoft has "ceded" their rights to FrontPage, it means that you no longer have the right to use it.

    This is why contracts have those clauses. For any non-trivial contract, it would not be good that the whole contract was nullified for obvious reasons, for either side.

    Finally, I am surprised this wasn't noticed in a reply, but in states where the UCITA or compatible varient has been passed, this clause is likely to be completely legal, merely a varient on the non-review clause.