Slashdot Mirror
MS FrontPage Restricts Free Speech II (It's True!)
A mild controvery occured yesterday in a story claiming Microsoft prohibits anti-ms speech if you use Frontpage. Here is a followup submitted by Reyacta from the original author: "Several readers have told me their
EULA for FrontPage 2002 does not contain the no-disparaging-MS
term, or that the term only applies to the FrontPage logo or to the
Web components like the MSNBC news headline component.
Just to be sure, this afternoon I went down to the store and bought
a copy of FrontPage 2002 myself. In the box was the "Microsoft
Frontpage 2002" license on a four-page folded sheet, titled "End- User License Agreement For Microsoft Software." Under Section
#1, Grant of License, the second paragraph headed "Restrictions"
states in part: "You may not use the Software in connection with
any site that disparages Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or
their products or services, infringe any intellectual property or other
rights of these parties, violate any state, federal or international
law, or promote racism, hatred or pornography." (Not only a
stunning example of legal overreaching, in my opinion, but very
poor grammar as well.) It appears to me to clearly apply to use of
the program as a whole and not just the logo or Web components.
I suspect that there are different versions of the EULA of FrontPage
2002. Perhaps the license was updated for the most recent SKU,
or versions obtained through different channels don't yet have it.
I'm going to try to get Microsoft to clarify where this EULA does
and doesn't appear, but I'm not sure they will be very anxious to
provide me with that information.
Reply to Ed Foster."
Use of this Dictionary of the English Language, or any of the words contained herein, constitutes acceptance of the following terms: You shall not use this dictionary, or any of the words derived therefrom, to disparage Microsoft, Encarta, or any of the companies we swallow up.
They definitely messed up on this one. I am not Anti-Microsoft like the rest of you and I still cannot believe this.
- kk
boycott their products
How surprising. MS continues to do things to piss me off. Good thing that I'm not using frontpage to write this comment...
You should get no argument when you return the product. Just tell the salesperson "The EULA prohibits me from using this product to run my website, www.livegoatporn.com."
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Windows 2005 EULA:
.NET servers, MSN and Bill Gate's Private XXX Stash.
Microsoft Windows may not be used for anything BUT the purposes of connection to
Boo-urns
You ARE going to return it on the grounds that you do not accept their user agreement, right? :)
And I quote:
"Not only a stunning example of legal overreaching, in my opinion, but very poor grammar as well."
I'm sorry. It's just so funny to read CmdrTaco complaining about grammar. I couldn't resist.
Moon Macrosystems. Sun's biggest competitor.
So Microsoft is monopolisitic and overbearing.
Whoda thunk it?
324006
why not just ignore that part of the EULA (or all of it =P) - i mean, what are they going to do, sue you? There's no way they could win *It's Unconstitutional*
stop paying attention to bad laws - they only distract you fromt he real problems going on
-shpoffo
Where's the verb in this sentence?
I hope bin Laden isn't using FrontPage, or he'll really be in trouble!!
Attention all planets of the Solar Federation! We have assumed control! - Neil Peart
I can see Gates right now...
"Hey, the government loves us enough to not separate us, lets see what else we can get away with!"
Seriously, its like training a Jack Russel Terrier. They are constantly testing their bounds to see what they can get away with. Someone needs to smack MS hard, and fast.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
If MS wants to ban the use of Front Page 2002 in the construction or maintenance of any sites which disparage them in some way, or which promote pornography, aren't they severely limiting their audience?
So the work around that many proposed is also prohibited. It was suggested that you could edit most of your site in Frontpage and then pop in the references to EVIL using vi or even Notepad (gag). But if you can't even use Frontpage in connection with an anti-Microsoft site then that option is out the window.
Next thing you know, Adobe will prohibit using GoLive! in connection with pro-Skylarov sites.
Lasers Controlled Games!
Anyone every try and return software because they didn't agree with the EULA? I can just see the arguement you would get in because its been opened and thus can only be exchanged for the same product.
What a shitty catch 22.
-paul
meatbarn.com
What good is making a website if you can't promote pornography?? Isn't that what the web is for??
Prevent linux based DDOS's!
http://linux.denialofservice.org/
Can we get a scan of that exact page? After the hoax of yesterday, I'm a little wary of this entire subject...
Maybe we'll see something like this in the next Internet Explorer EULA:
You may not use this software to view websites that disparage Microsoft or any of its entities. If you do, we'll hunt you down, take your computer, your mother's computer, and add you to our general shitlist.
-- yawn. --
honestly, what do you expect from microsoft, the company that has made it's billions from being heavy-handed in every situation it could. we're all well aware of the netscape/ie debate, the desktop-oem debate, the 'unfair' pricing strategy where ms penalizes those who would dare defy it.
wait a second, i've yet to read the license agreement for win2k(who the hell does anyway?) or ie6. by posting using these, could i wind up on ms's blacklist? maybe a funny thought now, but if this type of policy is permitted, it won't be funny in the future, it'll probably be true. think about it, your freedom of speech gone, because microsoft has billions, and it ends up writing the laws. feels kinda f*cked up to me.
Do you see the sig? Do you have it in your sights? Why yes, Miss Moneypenny...
My Comment License:
By reading this comment you are hereby accepting the terms of the following license:
1. You will never comment upon this comment to anyone.
2. You cannot read this comment aloud.
3. You cannot tell anyone where to find this comment.
4. (To hell with it!) You can't even read this comment.
I do everything the voices in my head tell me to...
Will they go after "adult" sites for damages or parody/satire sites?
What about the UCITA states? I believe at least one has passed a law that shrink-wrap licenses are enforceable.
--Al
... to sell a web page building application and then say it can't be used for promoting pornography. Doesn't MS realize that 99% of web content is pictures of naked ladies?
(intended as humor)
~ now you know
What if somebody starts crying "Frontpage is used to distribute porn! That's immoral! Make laws against it!"
You think that can't happen? You should know better...
Everyone knows Notepad is the best html editor anyway...
Oh wait, notepad is an MS product...
vi! pico! emacs!
GUI's are for wusses!!
No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
There's no sense boycotting the product. I would assume that the majority of users here on /. don't even use FrontPage, so a boycott is pointless.
:P
I say instead of staging as boycott, go out and actually buy the product, then create a website detailing the terms of the FrontPage EULA. Include your opinions, but try to make it as informative as possible. Technically, this would be anti-MS (I don't see how it couldn't).
Then, wait and see what happens. My guess is MS will leave it alone. At worst, they might revoke your license, in which case you're better off that you were before.
Time to break out the doublespeak I guess.
If this means what it sounds like, doesn't that impinge on the 1st Amendment, and thereby become unconstitutional?
Microsoft- not only are we a monopoly, we're unconstitutional!
:)
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
"You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services, infringe any intellectual property or other rights of these parties, violate any state, federal or international law, or promote racism, hatred or pornography."
It seems these argeements tend to get more sweeping. I can understand them actually saying 'don't use our products to disparage us'. Whether or not that's legal or binding, it's understandable.
But "hatred"? That's such a broad term that I'm rather surprised a legal let it in. How do you define hatred? Or rather, where does the definition stop? Many people agree on certain actions being 'hateful' or based on hatred, but others wouldn't be so clear cut. Anti-abortion sites might be considered 'hate' sites by some people- can they not use front page? Hatred (and porn) is in the eye of the beholder oftentimes, so how can a person USING the software determine how OTHERS will classify their use of the product?
creation science book
Would it then be illegal to create a message board with frontpage, if it was used without the knowledge of the creator to post anti-microsoft propaganda? This would, theoretically, allow MS to moderate discussion sites created with frontpage.
Microsoft might not have to spend so much effort trying to stop people from insulting their software if they spent a little more effort putting out software that doesn't earn as many disparaging remarks.
And I was so looking forward to migrating my site to Frontpage. Looks like I'll never be the complete and total MS Whore I've always wanted to be. Drats!
Dam it, now its really not worth me ripping front page 2002 off the net. I can break a license agreement once, but twice on the same piece of software, that's going way to far people.
Just going to have to stick with plane old notepad
my 2 cents plus 2 more
Geez, they better start cleaning house at communities.msn.com and Netmeeting before they start bitching about Front Page users and pornography.
Hmm, does that mean that Microsoft employees are encouraged to surf as much pr0n as possible, so that they can make sure the pages hasn't been done with frontpage? Call me mad, but it sounds like a pretty sweet arrangement ^_^
More seriously, does USA lack a govermental branch which deals with the rights of its citizens? Free speech? Almost all of us wants to get rid of all the terror and hate in the world, but it would be a terrible price to pay to turn west into the Taliban regime to achieve the goal...
While this is "legally overreaching", how many people is this going to affect? No one is going to shell out $100 for Frontpage to develop an anti-MS website. They _may_ download a "free" copy just to stick it to MS, but they won't pay. Not to mention that it is not enforceable.
What kind of credibility would an anti-MS website have if it used Frontpage anyway?
I don't know what the fuss is about. I'd love to see the bastards try to enforce this.
Microsoft Lawyer: "Your honor, I call CmdrTaco to the stand."
Taco: (takes stand)
MS: "Did you, on 9/20/2001, purchase a copy of Frontpage 2000?"
Taco: "Yes."
MS: "Did you, on 9/21/2001, use Frontpage 2000 to create a web site?"
Taco: "Yes."
MS: "And did that web site contain pictures of Mr. William H. Gates III engaging in copulation with half a dozen goats while simultaneously using the Microsoft logo to spank cash out of customers, bent over with their palms on the floor, pants around their ankles and stupid smiles on their faces?"
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
In other news: "You may not use this pen to write disparaging statements about BIC, or to commit slander, libel, or any criminal act. BIC explicitely refute any liability for misuse of this kind."
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
IANAL.
;-), I suspect an interesting legal battle.
I read a few interesting bullets in the original thread. One poster claimed that a flaw in the agreement voids the entire agreement. I also remember hearing that agreements like this can be voided if challenged in court.
So, all we need are a few daring souls to pen a few anti-MS websites using FP2002 and see if they take the bait. Assuming everyone gave their IRS rebate to the EFF,
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Just make an outrageous EULA, and the geeks will flock to by your product to check with their own eyes that the EULA is indeed as outrageous as the rumors says it is...
Maybe given the quality of sites like slashdot that tend to blindly and uniformly bash MS products, the EULA is really doing the web a favor.
Really, it's like banning geek zionists.
Sorry, can't do that. The agreement says that you cannot use the licensing agreement to disparage itself.
I'm sure the poster is showing that particular section, but other agreements found on the web had language at the beginning of the section restricting the scope of following sections.
I'm still dubious on this until I see it for myself, in context.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
You know, that wasn't even really that creative - and your imitation of the dialect wasn't that good either. If you're going to take the time to be a racist fuck, at least have the decency to be funny at it. Maybe that's 'the problem' - black people are a lot better at making fun of white people than white people are at making fun of black people
-shpoffo
... when I downloaded it from an FTP site in China ;)
My coursemates at the institution I attend are all reliant on FRONTPAGE to craft HTML (and they're from CS too). They're introduced to web site building via FRONTPAGE, and they know nothing else, and are unwilling to learn anything else. The very thought that you can make web pages with a text editor is ridiculous as far as they're concerned.
;)
The result of this? Our sysadmin (who graduated from our fine institution) makes really important information available using FRONTPAGE, and guess what? It refuses to load on anything other than the latest IE (it's full of ActiveX crap).
Frontpage is evil. It adds proprietry M$ extensions to messy HTML output. I'm all for HTML editing tools, but FRONTPAGE? I'm glad it's illegal to use it for so many things
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
yes, but it's always nice to remember why we don't use those product :)
the one on the DOJs legal wranglings. I suppose this will be largely unnoticed by the media in general...
One day in the future, free speech won't be illegal, it'll be an encroachment on the license agreement every citizen^h^h^h^h human resource must have with the Corporation of the U.S.A. (c) (r), patents pending, a subsidiary of Microsoft World Enterprises.
A little angry rhetoric I know.. but its how I feel right now.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
That says alot coming from this website.
hahhahaha, thanks.. i needed a laugh. Were going to war and all slashdot has to bitch about is an EUL of a program that doesn't even run under linux.
I can write a program that restricts its usage to females over 18 who love lesbian sex and will only be able to run this program butt ass naked.
hahahahahah, Cmdrtaco bitching about grammar hahaahahahahahahhaahahahahahahhaahahahhaah
Hmm, what will the next Internet Explorer license look like?
"You may not use the Software to view any site that disparages Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services, infringe any intellectual property or other rights of these parties, violate any state, federal or international law, or promote racism, hatred or pornography. Or Slashdot."
I wonder if the lawyers at various companies have contests to see who can sneak the most outrageous EULA past customers. I can just see it,
"Hey Ted, now everybody who buys our software X has to name their firstborn after me."
"Ha! That's nothing. Everybody who buys our stuff has to GIVE me their firstborn."
Now they won't sell Front Page to the porn industry? I bet 90% of the porn sites out there were created by it.
Microsoft continues to damage the economy by their actions.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
MS is clearly stupid to include this in their EULA. However, they are not violating your rights to free speech. Since the terms for this product are so odious, don't buy it. And make a stink agout the EULA so they get bad press over it. But you still have the ability to express yourself through web pages. That has not been lost. Your rights are still intact.
I hope you returned the software to your place of purchase for a full refund, under the terms of not agreeing to the EULA. Hate to give those bastard MS people 1 more cent than you have to.
Are you actually saying that Microsoft is doing something that the general public dosen't agree with? Could it be possible that the company _everybody+ loves and trusts, microsoft, could actually be doing something wrong?!?!
Nah, couldn't be.
http://www.linkdj.net/
IMHO if M$ continues to add such terms to the licence agreement, many corporation will find a real advantage in using Open Source.
This may be the break Linux and the other plateforms needed to break into the corporate and consumer's market.
Now if they start enforcing those licences, they will pay in terms of sales.
I allays thought that freedom of speech was one of the first things in the US constitution. If so, how can this hold up in cord?
Sorry for the spelling errors
When you get the "Blue Screen of Death" the EULA will stipulate that you are forbiden to cuss out Microsoft while you hit Ctrl-Alt-Del.
When you get a GPF - you'll be forbiden to yell and holler about those MS morons while you watch hours of work disappear.
When you get a Outlook Express virus, you'll be forbiden to say it's an exploit of MS, but rather you'll have to concede it's a feature.
When your network crashes, you will be forbiden to call anyone and tell them that Microsoft crashed - you'll have to blame it on yourself or proclaim that it's a result of Microsoft ceasing function to end a critical memory leak for your benefit.
When the internet becomes YAMM - Yet Another Microsoft Monopoly - you'll be forbiden to get online and complain about Microsoft in any way - even to Microsoft's own support staff. You will only be able to praise Microsoft's infinite wisdom and grace.
When entertainment centers become YAMM, you'll be forbiden to play any music that uses Microsoft's name in vain.
When toilets become YAMM, you'll be forbiden to fart in any way that sounds like Microsoft or Bill Gates.
When churches become yet another YAMM, you'll be required to... well, we'll wait and see...
What is the definition of the term "The Software" used in that EULA? The one I saw yesterday defined it in a prior paragraph specifically as the web componenents. Does this one not include that definition? Or is it defined differently? It's hard to evaluate that clause because without the definition it's somewhat out of context.
Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter-accusations.
Microsoft EULA: "You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services, infringe any intellectual property or other rights of these parties, violate any state, federal or international law, or promote racism, hatred or pornography."
I think the part about "racism, hatred or pornography" is only there to get sympathy and to hide that Microsoft is trying to repeal the U.S. constitutional right to free speech.
If Microsoft is allowed to continue this way, it will eventually be: United States, a Microsoft company.
What Should be the Response to Violence?
Bush's education improvements were
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
m edia/sdk/wmsdk.asp,
END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
IMPORTANT-READ CAREFULLY: This End-User
License Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement between you
(either an individual or a single entity) and Microsoft
Corporation for the Microsoft software product identified above,
which includes computer software and may include associated
media, printed materials, "online" or electronic documentation,
and Internet-based services ("Product"). An amendment or
addendum to this EULA may accompany the Product. YOU AGREE TO BE
BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY
INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE
PRODUCT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL
OR USE THE PRODUCT; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR
PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND.
1. GRANT OF LICENSE. Microsoft grants you the following rights
provided that you comply with all terms and conditions of
this EULA:
* Installation and use. You may install, use, access,
display and run one copy of the Product on a single
computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device
("Workstation Computer"). The Product may not be used
by more than two (2) processors at any one time on any
single Workstation Computer. You may permit a maximum
of ten (10) computers or other electronic devices (each
a "Device") to connect to the Workstation Computer to
utilize the services of the Product solely for File and
Print services, Internet Information Services, and remote
access (including connection sharing and telephony
services). The ten connection maximum includes any
indirect connections made through "multiplexing" or other
software or hardware which pools or aggregates
connections. Except as otherwise permitted by the
NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop
features described below, you may not use the Product
to permit any Device to use, access, display or run other
executable software residing on the Workstation Computer,
nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display,
or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless
the Device has a separate license for the Product.
* Mandatory Activation. The license rights granted under this
EULA are limited to the first thirty (30) days after
you first install the Product unless you supply
information required to activate your licensed copy in
the manner described during the setup sequence of the
Product. You can activate the Product through the use
of the Internet or telephone; toll charges may apply.
You may also need to reactivate the Product if you modify
your computer hardware or alter the Product. There are
technological measures in this Product that are designed
to prevent unlicensed or illegal use of the Product.
You agree that we may use those measures.
* Storage/Network Use. You may also store or install a copy
of the Product on a storage device, such as a network
server, used only to install or run the Product on your
other Workstation Computers over an internal network;
however, you must acquire and dedicate an additional
license for each separate Workstation Computer on or
from which the Product is installed, used, accessed,
displayed or run. A license for the Product may not be
shared or used concurrently on different Workstation
Computers.
* Reservation of Rights. Microsoft reserves all rights not
expressly granted to you in this EULA.
2. UPGRADES. To use a Product identified as an upgrade, you must
first be licensed for the product identified by Microsoft
as eligible for the upgrade. After upgrading, you may no
longer use the product that formed the basis for your
upgrade eligibility.
3. ADDITIONAL SOFTWARE/SERVICES. This EULA
applies to updates, supplements, add-on components,
or Internet-based services components, of the Product that
Microsoft may provide to you or make available to you after
the date you obtain your initial copy of the Product,
unless we provide other terms along with the update,
supplement, add-on component, or Internet-based services
component. Microsoft reserves the right to discontinue any
Internet-based services provided to you or made available
to you through the use of the Product. This EULA does not
grant you any rights to use the Windows Media Format
Software Development Kit ("WMFSDK") components contained
in the Product to develop a software application that uses
Windows Media technology. If you wish to use the WMFSDK
to develop such an application, visit
http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/imedia/windows
accept a separate license for the WMFSDK, download the
appropriate WMFSDK, and install it on your system.
4. TRANSFER-Internal. You may move the Product to a different
Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must
completely remove the Product from the former Workstation
Computer. Transfer to Third Party. The initial user of the
Product may make a one-time transfer of the Product to
another end user. The transfer has to include all
component parts, media, printed materials, this EULA, and
if applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity. The
transfer may not be an indirect transfer, such as a
consignment. Prior to the transfer, the end user receiving
the transferred Product must agree to all the EULA terms.
No Rental. You may not rent, lease, lend or provide
commercial hosting services to third parties with the
Product.
5. LIMITATION ON REVERSE ENGINEERING,
DECOMPILATION, AND DISASSEMBLY. You may
not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the
Product, except and only to the extent that it is expressly
permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this
limitation.
6. TERMINATION. Without prejudice to any other rights, Microsoft
may cancel this EULA if you do not abide by the terms and
conditions of this EULA, in which case you must destroy all
copies of the Product and all of its component parts.
7. DESCRIPTION OF OTHER RIGHTS AND
LIMITATIONS.
* NetMeeting/Remote Assistance/Remote Desktop Features. The
Product contains NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and
Remote Desktop technologies that enable the Product or
other applications installed on the Workstation Computer
to be used remotely between two or more computers, even
if the Product or application is installed on only one
Workstation Computer. You may use NetMeeting, Remote
Assistance, and Remote Desktop with all Microsoft products;
provided however, use of these technologies with
certain Microsoft products may require an additional
license. For Microsoft and non-Microsoft products, you
should consult the license agreement accompanying the
applicable product or contact the applicable licensor
to determine whether use of NetMeeting, Remote
Assistance, or Remote Desktop is permitted without an
additional license.
* Consent to Use of Data. You agree that Microsoft and its
affiliates may collect and use technical information
gathered in any manner as part of the product support
services provided to you, if any, related to the Product.
Microsoft may use this information solely to improve
our products or to provide customized services or
technologies to you. Microsoft may disclose this
information to others, but not in a form that personally
identifies you.
* Internet Gaming/Update Features. If you choose to utilize
the Internet gaming or update features within the
Product, it is necessary to use certain computer system,
hardware, and software information to implement the
features. By using these features, you explicitly
authorize Microsoft or its designated agent to access
and utilize the necessary information for Internet gaming
and/or updating purposes. Microsoft may use this
information solely to improve our products or to provide
customized services or technologies to you. Microsoft
may disclose this information to others, but not in a
form that personally identifies you.
* Internet-Based Services Components. The Product contains
components that enable and facilitate the use of certain
Internet-based services. You acknowledge and agree that
Microsoft may automatically check the version of the
Product and/or its components that you are utilizing
and may provide upgrades or fixes to the Product that
will be automatically downloaded to your Workstation
Computer.
* Security Updates. Content providers are using the digital
rights management technology ("Microsoft DRM") contained
in this Product to protect the integrity of their content
("Secure Content") so that their intellectual property,
including copyright, in such content is not misappropriated. Owners of
such Secure Content ("Secure Content Owners") may, from
time to time, request Microsoft to provide security
related updates to the Microsoft DRM components of the
Product ("Security Updates") that may affect your ability
to copy, display and/or play Secure Content through
Microsoft software or third party applications that
utilize Microsoft DRM. You therefore agree that, if
you elect to download a license from the Internet which
enables your use of Secure Content, Microsoft may, in
conjunction with such license, also download onto your
computer such Security Updates that a Secure Content
Owner has requested that Microsoft distribute. Microsoft
will not retrieve any personally identifiable
information, or any other information, from your computer
by downloading such Security Updates.
8. NOT FOR RESALE SOFTWARE. Product
identified as "Not for Resale" or "NFR," may not be resold,
transferred or used for any purpose other than
demonstration, test or evaluation.
9. ACADEMIC EDITION SOFTWARE. To use
Product identified as "Academic Edition" or "AE," you must
be a "Qualified Educational User." For qualification-
related questions, please contact the Microsoft Sales
Information Center/One Microsoft Way/Redmond, WA 98052-6399
or the Microsoft subsidiary serving your country.
10. EXPORT RESTRICTIONS.
You acknowledge that the Product is of U.S. origin and
subject to U.S. export jurisdiction. You agree to comply
with all applicable international and national laws that
apply to the Product, including the U.S. Export
Administration Regulations, as well as end-user, end-use,
and destination restrictions issued by U.S. and other
governments. For additional information see
.
11. LIMITED WARRANTY FOR PRODUCT ACQUIRED IN
THE US AND CANADA.
Microsoft warrants that the Product will perform
substantially in accordance with the accompanying
materials for a period of ninety days from the date of
receipt.
If an implied warranty or condition is created by
your state/jurisdiction and federal or state/provincial law
prohibits disclaimer of it, you also have an implied
warranty or condition, BUT ONLY AS
TO DEFECTS DISCOVERED DURING THE PERIOD
OF THIS LIMITED WARRANTY (NINETY DAYS).
AS TO ANY DEFECTS DISCOVERED AFTER THE
NINETY (90) DAY PERIOD, THERE IS NO
WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF ANY KIND.
Some states/jurisdictions do not allow limitations on how
long an implied warranty or condition lasts, so the above
limitation may not apply to you.
Any supplements or updates to the Product, including without
limitation, any (if any) service packs or hot fixes
provided to you after the expiration of the ninety day
Limited Warranty period are not covered by any warranty or
condition, express, implied or statutory.
LIMITATION ON REMEDIES; NO CONSEQUENTIAL
OR OTHER DAMAGES. Your exclusive remedy for any breach
of this Limited Warranty is as set forth below. Except
for any refund elected by Microsoft, YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED
TO ANY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, if
the Product does not meet Microsoft's Limited Warranty,
and, to the maximum extent allowed by applicable law, even
if any remedy fails of its essential purpose. The terms
of Section 13 below ("Exclusion of Incidental,
Consequential and Certain Other Damages") are also
incorporated into this Limited Warranty. Some states/
jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion or limitation
of incidental or consequential damages, so the above
limitation or exclusion may not apply to you. This
Limited Warranty gives you specific legal rights. You
may have others which vary from state/jurisdiction to
state/jurisdiction. YOUR EXCLUSIVE REMEDY. Microsoft's
and its suppliers' entire liability and your exclusive
remedy shall be, at Microsoft's option from time to time
exercised subject to applicable law, (a) return of the
price paid (if any) for the Product, or (b) repair or
replacement of the Product, that does not meet this
Limited Warranty and that is returned to Microsoft with
a copy of your receipt. You will receive the remedy
elected by Microsoft without charge, except that you are
responsible for any expenses you may incur (e.g. cost of
shipping the Product to Microsoft). This Limited Warranty
is void if failure of the Product has resulted from
accident, abuse, misapplication, abnormal use or a virus.
Any replacement Product will be warranted for the
remainder of the original warranty period or thirty (30)
days, whichever is longer. Outside the United States or
Canada, neither these remedies nor any product support
services offered by Microsoft are available without proof
of purchase from an authorized international source. To
exercise your remedy, contact: Microsoft, Attn. Microsoft
Sales Information Center/One Microsoft Way/Redmond, WA
98052-6399, or the Microsoft subsidiary serving
your country.
LIMITED WARRANTY FOR PRODUCT ACQUIRED
OUTSIDE THE US or CANADA.
FOR THE LIMITED WARRANTIES AND SPECIAL
PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO YOUR PARTICULAR
JURISDICTION, PLEASE REFER TO YOUR WARRANTY
BOOKLET INCLUDED WITH THIS PACKAGE OR
PROVIDED WITH THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT
PRINTED MATERIALS.
12. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. The Limited
Warranty that appears above is the only express warranty
made to you and is provided in lieu of any other express
warranties (if any) created by any documentation,
packaging, or other communications. Except for the Limited
Warranty and to the maximum extent permitted by applicable
law, Microsoft and its suppliers provide the Product and
support services (if any) AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and
hereby disclaim all other warranties and conditions, either
express, implied or statutory, including, but not limited
to, any (if any) implied warranties, duties or conditions
of merchantability, of fitness for a particular purpose,
of reliability or availability, of accuracy or completeness
of responses, of results, of workmanlike effort, of lack
of viruses, and of lack of negligence, all with regard to
the Product, and the provision of or failure to provide
support or other services, information, software, and
related content through the Product or otherwise arising
out of the use of the Product. ALSO, THERE IS NO WARRANTY
OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT,
QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO
DESCRIPTION OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH
REGARD TO THE PRODUCT.
13. EXCLUSION OF INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL
AND CERTAIN OTHER DAMAGES. TO THE
MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE
LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL MICROSOFT OR ITS
SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL,
INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, INDIRECT, OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES
FOR LOSS OF PROFITS OR CONFIDENTIAL OR
OTHER INFORMATION, FOR BUSINESS
INTERRUPTION, FOR PERSONAL INJURY, FOR
LOSS OF PRIVACY, FOR FAILURE TO MEET
ANY DUTY INCLUDING OF GOOD FAITH OR OF
REASONABLE CARE, FOR NEGLIGENCE, AND
FOR ANY OTHER PECUNIARY OR OTHER LOSS
WHATSOEVER) ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY
WAY RELATED TO THE USE OF OR INABILITY
TO USE THE PRODUCT, THE PROVISION OF
OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT OR OTHER
SERVICES, INFORMATON, SOFTWARE, AND
RELATED CONTENT THROUGH THE PRODUCT OR
OTHERWISE ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THE
PRODUCT, OR OTHERWISE UNDER OR IN
CONNECTION WITH ANY PROVISION OF THIS
EULA, EVEN IN THE EVENT OF THE FAULT,
TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF CONTRACT OR BREACH
OF WARRANTY OF MICROSOFT OR ANY
SUPPLIER, AND EVEN IF MICROSOFT OR ANY
SUPPLIER HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
14. LINKS TO THIRD PARTY SITES. You may link
to third party sites through the use of the Product. The
third party sites are not under the control of Microsoft,
and Microsoft is not responsible for the contents of any
third party sites, any links contained in third party
sites, or any changes or updates to third party sites.
Microsoft is not responsible for webcasting or any other
form of transmission received from any third party sites.
Microsoft is providing these links to third party sites to
you only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any link
does not imply an endorsement by Microsoft of the third
party site.
15. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY AND REMEDIES.
Notwithstanding any damages that you might incur for any
reason whatsoever (including, without limitation, all
damages referenced above and all direct or general
damages), the entire liability of Microsoft and any of its
suppliers under any provision of this EULA and your
exclusive remedy for all of the foregoing (except for any
remedy of repair or replacement elected by Microsoft with
respect to any breach of the Limited Warranty) shall be
limited to the greater of the amount actually paid by you
for the Product or U.S.$5.00. The foregoing limitations,
exclusions and disclaimers (including Sections 11, 12 and
13 above) shall apply to the maximum extent permitted by
applicable law, even if any remedy fails its
essential purpose.
16. U.S. GOVERNMENT LICENSE RIGHTS. All
Product provided to the U.S. Government pursuant to
solicitations issued on or after December 1, 1995 is
provided with the commercial license rights and
restrictions described elsewhere herein. All Product
provided to the U.S. Government pursuant to solicitations
issued prior to December 1, 1995 is provided with
"Restricted Rights" as provided for in FAR, 48 CFR 52.227-14
(JUNE 1987) or DFAR, 48 CFR 252.227-7013 (OCT 1988),
as applicable.
17. APPLICABLE LAW. If you acquired this Product in the United
States, this EULA is governed by the laws of the State of
Washington. If you acquired this Product in Canada, unless
expressly prohibited by local law, this EULA is governed
by the laws in force in the Province of Ontario, Canada;
and, in respect of any dispute which may arise hereunder,
you consent to the jurisdiction of the federal and
provincial courts sitting in Toronto, Ontario. If this
Product was acquired outside the United States, then local
law may apply.
18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This EULA (including
any addendum or amendment to this EULA which is included
with the Product) are the entire agreement between you and
Microsoft relating to the Product and the support services
(if any) and they supersede all prior or contemporaneous
oral or written communications, proposals and
representations with respect to the Product or any other
subject matter covered by this EULA. To the extent the
terms of any Microsoft policies or programs for support
services conflict with the terms of this EULA, the terms
of this EULA shall control.
19. The Product is protected by copyright and other intellectual
property laws and treaties. Microsoft or its suppliers own
the title, copyright, and other intellectual property
rights in the Product. The Product is licensed, not sold.
Si vous avez acquis votre produit Microsoft au CANADA, la
garantie limitée suivante vous concerne :
GARANTIE LIMITÉE
Microsoft garantit que le Produit fonctionnera conformément aux
documents qui l'accompagnent pendant une période de 90 jours
suivant la date de réception.
Si une garantie ou condition implicite est créée par votre État
ou votre territoire et qu'une loi fédérale, provinciale ou
étatique en interdit le déni, vous jouissez également d'une
garantie ou condition implicite,
MAIS UNIQUEMENT POUR LES DÉFAUTS DÉCOUVERTS
DURANT LA PÉRIODE DE LA PRÉSENTE GARANTIE
LIMITÉE (QUATRE-VINGT-DIX JOURS). IL N'Y A
AUCUNE GARANTIE OU CONDITION DE QUELQUE
NATURE QUE CE SOIT QUANT AUX DÉFAUTS
DÉCOUVERTS APRÈS CETTE PÉRIODE DE QUATR
E-VINGT-DIX JOURS. Certains États ou territoires ne permettent
pas de limiter la durée d'une garantie ou condition implicite de
sorte que la limitation cidessus peut ne pas s'appliquer à vous.
Tous les suppléments ou toutes les mises à jour relatifs au
Produit, y compris notamment (le cas échéant), tous les ensembles
de services ou les réparations à chaud qui vous sont fournis
après l'expiration de la période de quatre-vingt-dix jours de la
garantie limitée ne sont pas couverts par quelque garantie ou
condition que ce soit, expresse,implicite ou en vertu de la loi.
LIMITATION DES RECOURS; ABSENCE DE DOMMAGES
INDIRECTS OU AUTRES. Votre recours exclusif pour toute violation
de la présente garantie limitée est décrit ci-après. Sauf pour
tout remboursement au choix de Microsoft, si le Produit ne
respecte pas la garantie limitée de Microsoft et, dans toute la
mesure permise par le droit applicable, même si tout recours
n'atteint pas son but essentiel, VOUS N'AVEZ DROIT À AUCUNS
DOMMAGES, NOTAMMENT DES DOMMAGES INDIRECTS.
Les modalités de la clause "Exclusion des dommages accessoires,
indirects et de certains autres dommages " sont également
incorporées à la présente garantie limitée. Certains États ou
territoires ne permettent pas l'exclusion ou la limitation des
dommages indirects ou accessoires de sorte que la limitation ou
l'exclusion ci-dessus peut ne pas s'appliquer à vous. La présente
garantie limitée vous donne des droits légaux spécifiques. Vous
pouvez avoir d'autres droits qui peuvent varier d'un territoire
ou d'un État à un autre. VOTRE RECOURS
EXCLUSIF. La responsabilité intégrale de Microsoft et de ses
fournisseurs et votre recours exclusif seront, selon le choix de
Microsoft de temps à autre sous réserve de toute loi applicable,
a) le remboursement du prix payé, le cas échéant, pour le Produit
ou b) la réparation ou le remplacement du Produit qui ne respecte
pas la présente garantie limitée et qui est retourné à Microsoft
avec une copie de votre reçu. Vous recevrez la compensation
choisie par Microsoft, sans frais, sauf que vous êtes responsable
des dépenses que vous pourriez engager (p. ex., les frais d'envoi
du Produit à Microsoft). La présente garantie limitée est nulle
si la défectuosité du Produit est causée par un accident, un
usage abusif, une mauvaise application, un usage anormal ou un
virus. Tout Produit de remplacement sera garanti pour le reste de
la période de garantie initiale ou pendant trente (30) jours,
selon la plus longue entre ces deux périodes. À l'extérieur
des États-Unis ou du Canada, ces recours ou l'un quelconque des
services de soutien technique offerts par Microsoft ne sont pas
disponibles sans preuve d'achat d'une source internationale
autorisée. Pour exercer votre recours, vous devez communiquer
avec Microsoft et vous adresser au Microsoft Sales
Information Center/One Microsoft Way/Redmond, WA 98052-6399, ou à
la filiale de Microsoft de votre pays.
DÉNI DE GARANTIES. La garantie limitée qui apparaît ci-dessus
constitue la seule garantie expresse qui vous est donnée et
remplace toutes autres garanties expresses (s'il en est)
mentionnées dans tout document, emballage ou autre communication.
Sauf en ce qui a trait à la garantie limitée et dans toute la
mesure permise par le droit applicable, le Produit et les
services de soutien technique (le cas échéant) sont fournis TELS
QUELS ET AVEC TOUS LEURS DÉFAUTS par
Microsoft et ses fournisseurs, lesquels par les présentes dénient
toutes autres garanties et conditions expresses, implicites ou en
vertu de la loi, y compris notamment (le cas échéant) les
garanties, devoirs ou conditions implicites de qualité marchande,
d'adaptation à une fin particulière, de fiabilité ou
disponibilité, d'exactitude ou d'exhaustivité des réponses, des
résultats, des efforts déployés selon les règles de l'art,
d'absence de virus et de négligence, le tout à l'égard du Produit
et de la prestation des services de soutien technique ou autres
services ou du défaut de fournir une telle prestation, de
l'information, du logiciel, et de tout contenu s'y rapportant à
travers le Produit ou autrement découlant de l'utilisation du
Produit. PAR AILLEURS, IL N'Y A AUCUNE
GARANTIE OU CONDITION QUANT AU TITRE DE
PROPRIÉTÉ, À LA JOUISSANCE OU LA POSSESSION
PAISIBLE, À LA CONCORDANCE À UNE DESCRIPTION
NI QUANT À UNE ABSENCE DE CONTREFAÇON
CONCERNANT LE PRODUIT.
EXCLUSION DES DOMMAGES ACCESSOIRES, INDIRECTS
ET DE CERTAINS AUTRES DOMMAGES. DANS TOUTE LA
MESURE PERMISE PAR LE DROIT APPLICABLE, EN
AUCUN CAS MICROSOFT OU SES FOURNISSEURS NE
SERONT RESPONSABLES DES DOMMAGES SPÉCIAUX,
ACCESSOIRES, EXEMPLAIRES OU INDIRECTS DE
QUELQUE NATURE QUE CE SOIT (Y COMPRIS
NOTAMMENT, LES DOMMAGES À L'ÉGARD DE LA PERTE
DE PROFITS OU DE LA DIVULGATION DE
RENSEIGNEMENTS CONFIDENTIELS OU AUTRES, DE
L'INTERRUPTION DES AFFAIRES, DE BLESSURES
CORPORELLES, DE LA VIOLATION DE LA VIE
PRIVÉE, DE L'OMISSION DE REMPLIR TOUT DEVOIR,
Y COMPRIS D'AGIR DE BONNE FOI OU D'EXERCER UN
SOIN RAISONNABLE, DE LA NÉGLIGENCE ET DE
TOUTE AUTRE PERTE PÉCUNIAIRE OU AUTRE PERTE
DE QUELQUE NATURE QUE CE SOIT) DÉCOULANT OU
SE RAPPORTANT DE QUELQUE MANIÈRE QUE CE SOIT
À L'UTILISATION DU PRODUIT OU À L'INCAPACITÉ
DE S'EN SERVIR, À LA PRESTATION DE SERVICES
DE SOUTIEN TECHNIQUE OU AUTRES SERVICES OU À
L'OMISSION D'UNE TELLE PRESTATION , À
L'INFORMATION, AU LOGICIEL ET À TOUT CONTENU
S'Y RAPPORTANT À TRAVERS LE PRODUIT OU
AUTREMENT DÉCOULANT DE L'UTILISATION DU
PRODUIT OU AUTREMENT AUX TERMES DE TOUTE
DISPOSITION DU PRÉSENT CONTRAT OU
RELATIVEMENT À UNE TELLE DISPOSITION, MÊME EN
CAS DE FAUTE, DE DÉLIT CIVIL (Y COMPRIS LA
NÉGLIGENCE), DE RESPONSABILITÉ STRICTE, DE
VIOLATION DE CONTRAT OU DE VIOLATION DE
GARANTIE DE MICROSOFT OU DE TOUT FOURNISSEUR
ET MÊME SI MICROSOFT OU TOUT FOURNISSEUR A
ÉTÉ AVISÉ DE LA POSSIBILITÉ DE TELS DOMMAGES.
LIMITATION DE RESPONSABILITÉ ET RECOURS.
Malgré les dommages que vous puissiez subir pour quelque motif
que ce soit (y compris notamment, tous les dommages susmentionnés
et tous les dommages directs ou généraux), la responsabilité
intégrale de Microsoft et de l'un ou l'autre de ses fournisseurs
aux termes de toute disposition du présent contrat et votre
recours exclusif à l'égard de tout ce qui précède (sauf en ce qui
concerne tout recours de réparation ou de remplacement choisi par
Microsoft à l'égard de tout manquement à la garantie limitée) se
limite au plus élevé entre les montants suivants : le montant que
vous avez réellement payé pour le Produit ou 5,00 $US. Les
limites, exclusions et dénis qui précèdent (y compris les clauses
ci-dessus), s'appliquent dans la toute la mesure permise par le
droit applicable, même si tout recours n'atteint pas son
but essentiel.
La présente Convention est régie par les lois de la province
d'Ontario, Canada. Vous reconnaissez irrévocablement par la
présente la compétence des tribunaux de la province d'Ontario et
consentez à instituer tout litige qui pourrait découler de la
présente auprès des tribunaux fédéraux ou provinciaux ayant
juridiction pour la ville de Toronto, province d'Ontario.
EULAID:WX.4_PRO_RTL_EN
This seems to be a trend. Oracle's most recent software licenses have started to include additional restrictions, such as not being able to use the software to conduct third-party training. This obviously is designed to protect Oracle's own Education centers, but isn't that a restraint of trade? Why should they be able to say what uses you can make of the software?
I think there's a case to be made that End User License Agreements are accepted by users under duress, because there is no acceptable alternative to the software once it's in production and the company is relying on it for its core business processes.
Please say you read the EULA, and did not agree with it, and returned it to the vendor for a full refund.
At least this would send a message out that people won't put up with shit for software, and shit for software licenses, and tell the vendor that yourself, if possible, to the manager if it's a big chain store like Best Buy/Future Shop.
END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT SERVER LICENSE FOR
MICROSOFT WINDOWS 2000 SERVER PRODUCTS
IMPORTANT-READ CAREFULLY: This End-User License Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or a single entity) and Microsoft Corporation for the Microsoft software product identified above, which includes computer software and may include associated media, printed materials, and "online" or electronic documentation ("Product"). An amendment or addendum to this EULA may accompany the Product. YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE PRODUCT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL OR USE THE PRODUCT; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND.
In the original conspiracy theory posted by /. numerous people pointed out that the clause only referred to the use of the MSN and MSNBC components, which are basically web services of a sort.
This new article only states that the sentence does appear in the EULA, which was not in dispute.
What was in dispute was whether the sentence was taken out of context.
This new article doesn't provide any new evidence.
The text in italics isn't the Slashdot staff, but rather, the story submitter. Hopefully, if we _do_ go to war, you will be the first soldier out of the troop transport, naked, with a giant bullseye painted on your forehead.
The next American revolution will be fought over corporatism. The next Bill of Rights will extend the prohibitions on governmental restrictions to corporate restrictions.
Wasn't it Sirius Cybernetic Corporation that Douglas Adams mentioned in HHGG that was predicted to be the first against the wall in the next revolution? He was a prophet...
I like how racism, hatred and pornography are listed after making disparaging remarks about Microsoft. Good to know they've got their priorities straight.
InstantCool
Once again, you quote the license out of context. The key question is what is the "Software" referred to by the license. It is NOT the executable used to create web pages. As defined by the license, it is only the logo and tickers and such.
In plain English, the license says, "You may not create a porn site displaying the Frontpage logo. You may not create a web site that bashes minorities and claim that your site is proudly supported by Microsoft services."
For the people going crazy about censorship and the Constitution, you are way off base. Microsoft is not the government. And other corporations limit speech all the time. Let's take a poll? Who's ISP has a clause forbidding spamming from your email account? Gosh, they don't let you say anything you want to. I don't see anybody here jumping up and down about their right to spam.
And really, get over it people. I don't think one person complaining here even uses Frontpage. So why the hell do you care?
You know it's pretty bad when even Taco starts pointing out grammar mistakes.
To put it plain and simple... this is going WAY too far! If Microsoft would just play nice, I wouldn't mind thier huge monopoly so much, but this is outrageous. There needs to be an organized, massive boycott against thier products until they clean up thier act!
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
- If you are so anti-Microsoft that you feel the need to create a site against it, isn't it a touch hypocrtical to be using a Microsoft product to do that? In other words, if Microsoft is so evil, why are you using their product? (I know some may say they have no choice. Why? For instance, if it is "your company's toolset," they probably don't want you creating an anti-anything site on thier dime)
- Can anyone really blame them if they don't want to have their own tools used against them. It's like a wife not having to testify against her husband. Or creating a stipped down version of a a fighter for export (a Carter administration idea that didn't work out).
They aren't saying you can't create an anti-Microsoft site, or that they can't exist at all. They are simply saying that their tools can't be used for it. What's the problem with that?Put another way: what if I created an anti-Linux site using the Tux image? Right now I'm not prohibited from using it, but I'm sure that would upset a lot of the people who post here. Now, take it to the next step: I develop the site on a Linux system, hosting it on a Linux server.
If you're into Microsoft bashing, why just not remove the HTML header of the pages that say stuff against Microsoft? It's really not that hard. I guess if I was Fox I wouldn't like the Simpsons telling me I suck...oh wait...they do! Maybe Microsoft should do the same and just live and let live!
Hey ... they got Capone on tax evasion. Wouldn't it just be pathetic if Microsoft actually HELPED THE WORLD by giving the US a legal justification for putting him on trial. Yikes. I pray this scenario doesn't unfold -- it wouldn't be pretty.
I hope he returned it soon afterwards
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
I just used Microsoft FrontPage to create this comment (by exporting the source and copying the text to slashdot's comment box).
FORGET MS AND ITS CRAPPY PRODUCTS!
Go on, sue me for breaking your terms of license! Come on, what are you waiting for? The UCITA?
Here, let me make sure that everything is clear. I hereby disparage Microsoft and all its products and services.
Lousy slimy buggy Word
Lousy slimy buggy Excel
Lousy slimy buggy Frontpage
Lousy slimy buggy unreliable MSN
Lousy slimy buggy Expedia
Lousy slimy censoring MSNBC
Lousy slimy buggy Windows
Lousy slimy buggy DOS
Lousy slimy buggy IE
Lousy slimy buggy Access
Lousy slimy COMPANY
See you in court!
-Derek
So you don't like the terms that attach to FrontPage ? Simple, DON'T USE IT AND RETURN THE PRODUCT. After all, this is what everyone who objects to the (equally dubious) clauses of the GPL are told, isn't it ? Why is one set of restrictive conditions being vilified while another set of restrictive conditions sanctified ? Certainly in both cases consumers and users have plenty of choices available.
In essense, what M$ is saying is "buy our product, but only use it for things we find valuable." In this context this is also a direct violation of the first ammendment. You cannot provide a publishing tool and then attempt to restrict what its being used to publish.
Having said that (I'm rambling I know), if M$ assets were involved, say MSN, then they could restrict such content. IOW - "We don't wish to host sites that say bad things about M$ or our friends" seems to me to be well within their rights.
Best policy, it seems, would be to use something else.
"Stop whining!" - Arnold, as Mr. Kimble
I wouldn't mind it one bit if they all took a sick day at the same time, to tell Microsoft that they are sick of the Lawyers and the Marketroids screwing around with the public like this.
This has nothing to do with the quality of the product.
It was for reason like this that people start to sabotage repressive regimes.
This is evil, whoever put it in. And they wonder why people don't like them.
In times like these people and companies should assert and protect their rights. Not try to rip them off.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
All bic has to do is ban the planing of terrorist activites with its products, and we can send our boys home!
Now if we can only get the pencil people onboard....
Slashdot 's editors are dickheads
how long do you think it will be untill some one makes a web page using FP2002 that has porn, hate, and dispareges MS+ and then E-mails the HTML file to Billy and his law department?
:)
I bett 2600 does it first
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Son, you have _far_ too much time on your hands...
The scary thing is, I agree with you!
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
The real victim here is Ed Foster, who selflessly prostrated himself on the alter of Microsoft for the betterment of us all. Who among us had the sense to track down a copy of the FP2002 EULA and actually VERIFY WHAT IT SAYS before commenting authoritatively about it?! Much less the glandular fortitude to go out and actually purchase a copy of FrontPage?
Ed should get a cookie. From adserver.com
"Because I love Pat Benatar." -- Britney Spears, when asked why she covered Joan Jett's "I Love Rock 'n' Roll"
First rule about buying M$ products: You dont talk shit about MS products
Second rule about buying M$ products: You dont talk shit about MS products
Does this sound familiar. Anyone up for some Fight Club Bill Gates style???
The answer to all your problems
Oddly enough, though, I couldn't find any META tags specifying what the generator was! Something tells me they don't code their pages by hand... are they embarrassed about what authoring program they _do_ use??
Skivvy Niner? Email me!
HEY! Look left just ONE MORE TIME!
Make sure you include some porn on the page you created. And some links to white-supremacist sites...
You're using her as bait, Master!
Going to war has nothing to do with a company leveraging its monopoly position to try to stifle/crush criticism of itself.
It never ceases to amaze me how some people will stoop to any low to try to associate a human tragedy's concern with their own totally unrelated interests. Your attempt at trying to correlate the consequences of last week with a very legitimate concern over clauses in a Microsoft EULA is shameful.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
It's probably a pipe-dream, but I really do suggest that writers of EULAs, licences, etc, start by reading some books on how to recognise what is mutually beneficial and what is merely abusive.
I suggest starting with some light reading - "For Your Own Good", "The Verbally Abusive Relationship" and "The Road Less Travelled" are probably good places to start. You might notice that none of them specifically talk about EULAs, or indeed about computer software. However, they have a LOT to say about the mind, what stimulates it and what kills it.
I accept that no two people are going to agree on what is a sane policy or attitude, but one thing is certain. Unless people DO start thinking about such issues, we're going to see a lot more EULAs like this. And worse.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
To make this a little bit topical, I seem to recall that the Taliban has a law against using the Internet. So to avoid breaking this (international) law, am I not allowed to use FrontPage in connection with the Internet?
Well, see, now they'll have to revise their future EULA to reflect that. :>
The first amendment restricts the government from restricting free speech. Companies can stop their partners, employees, and consultants from speaking against them. The EULA does not stop consumers from speaking out against Micro$haft. Nothing is forcing you to buy FrontPage so the argument that Micro$haft stopping free speech is a bit of a stretch to me. You do not have to use FrontPage you can use what ever you want to create an anti-Micro$haft website. I do remember seeing a anti-Micro$haft site that was done in FrontPage. If I can find I will post it.
"...infringe any intellectual property or other rights of these parties, violate any state, federal or international law..."
So we can't infringe their rights, but they can take away free speech from us. This certainly is the Land of Opportunity, where anyone can screw anyone. Just don't talk about it afterwards. At least, if Bill decides to drop Expedia or any of the others, he can't bitch about them on a web site using FrontPage. Of course, Bill ain't stupid. He's probably using Linux.
I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message.
To all of you worried about the Bill of Rights being trampled here, and not bothering to get the "freedom of speech" part correct, here it is:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
As far as I know, the Front Page EULA is not currently up for vote in front of the Congress. I may be wrong -- please let me know if I am...
Try this one:
At Smith&Wesson, you can buy our revolvers by agreeing that you won't shoot any humans or wildlife; only fire on targets at a firing range. (For clarification, I just made that up).
Its the same thing. You can't place those types of restriction without the law backing you up. It'll fall apart the first time microsoft attempts to sue.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
I wonder if it soon will be illegal to write anti-3M sentiments on a post-it note?
This sounds like a CYA move. If someone were to get in legal trouble for a site they created, MS could avoid getting dragged into any courtroom by hiding behind the EULA. "Your Honor, the EULA clearly states that you cannot use the software to create such a site. Our hands are clean."
It's a sad commentary on our society that I come to that conclusion, but there it is.
Hi-Technical Excellent Taste and Flavor!
Gosh, I hope the Justice Dept. didn't use FrontPage to generate the web page for Penfield Jackson's Findings of Fact.
"All your thoughts are belong to us!"
That reminds me, whatever happened to the Natalie Portman and hot grits posts? And where is signal11?
The EULA of the future will prohibit even thinking a bad thought about Microsoft. The serial numbers will be 100 digits long, and you will be told to post a photo of Bill Gates above your desk. Some reviewers will say that Microsoft was very kind to include a photo in the box, so that users do not have to buy one separately.
What Should be the Response to Violence?
Bush's education improvements were
Where are you now, oh superior one? How does that foot of yours taste??
Just to be sure, this afternoon I went down to the store and bought a copy of FrontPage 2002 myself.
:-)
Now that you know you *are* gonna take it back, right?
No it isn't a violation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects you against the government suppressing speech - not a private company.
It is a contract of sorts. You can say whatever you want - you just can't use their tool to do it. If you do, they can fight you on breeching the contract. You will pay damages. You will not have your speech removed unless you choose to do so.
It is an onerous license, so don't use the tool. Simple. But they aren't violating your rights because you don't have to purchase the tool - there are other tools available.
But how are my kids supposed to eat?
"It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
Again we get into the stupid ass issue of free speach and exactly what it is. And while everyone is pissing about MS censoring people the people here are doing the very same thing. HYPOCRITES!
2 points.
1) With this etrrorist bombing, I don't think the American people will care to do anything about this. Unless they discover that Bill Gates is muslim. Or that the Gates Foundation has given money to Al Qaeda.
2) Second unless the above is true... I think the Justice department is waiting for an EULA of the following "...may not be used in conjunction or on the same system/network as a product that competes directly or indirectly with any Microsoft product..."
Reproduce the bad grammer correctly ;->.
Or buys it to check the EULA to win a /. debate? LOL
I don't get it. Don't we ALL agree that Mickeysoft in general and specially their EULAs just plain suck big time? Not to speak of Frontpain (rotfl...)
So what's the big issue here?
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
That the USians gave to them... they could come in handy in the next few weeks.
Just to be sure, this afternoon I went down to the store and bought a copy of FrontPage 2002 myself...
So that's their new revenue plan. Obscure and inflammatory EULA that have to be seen to be believed, and purchased to be seen.
Which must be taking the place of their older scheme which was to add such ridiculous easter-egg functions to random products that people would of course just HAVE to see
what the hell is a 'junk character', anyway?
As simple as it gets!
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
It seems to me that that stuff is put there to cover their legal asses in case someone is offended by a website that was created using Frontpage.
I could totally see someone deciding that the website creator was not enough money and deciding to sue MS instead for creating the software that allows it.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Microsoft EULA for the next federal purchase of Office: You may not use the Software in connection with any legal action involveing Microsoft and Microsoft owned properties. This includes but is not limited to antitrust actions, restraint of trade, export control or money laundering.
- Passport saying "all your info belongs to us"
- racketeering of digital photos
- Smart Tags
- Astroturfing
- etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
And this is just the ones where they got caught, the mainstream media cared, and they backed down. There's plenty of other shit they do that slides by.Sorry, but after the same exact set of events repeats itself dozens of times over the course of a decade, you can't chalk it up to accident any more. This is malice.
I read this and then went back to re-read something in the previous story. According to this post, if you read the section from the beginning the term Software means only the web components and the like. We will probably need clarification because I don't believe this means the FrontPage product, but the use of some available components which could be included on a site which falls under the described categories.
I've found a lot of things can be misinterpreted if the full picture/meaning/wording is not examined and taken into consideration. I don't know if this is one of those cases, but I'm going to see if I can find someone who uses the product and take a look for myself.
Enough said ;)
Voltaire: God is dead.
God: Voltaire is dead!
I'm a .NET developer and recently I've been building solutions using Windows, SQL Server, Etc. I can usually be found defending MS as Slashdot generally has an unfair bias against them. This, however, SHOCKS ME. How many more donations to the EFF do I have to make this year? I used to say MS's biggest weakness (and challange) was it's inherint security problems in Office/Outlook. Now I'll have to tack on truly draconion EULA's.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Does this make it illegal for, say, ZDNet to write bad reviews of MS products if they use Front Page anywhere on their site?
Doesn't change anything. Microsoft is saying they are above the law of the land.
Bush's education improvements were
Isn't this what software vendors are trying to do? The idea is to enforce the license agreement as a contract. There is nothing wrong with putting all sorts of ridiculous conditions in a contract (unconstitutional or otherwise) because the idea is that you don't have to "sign it".
Since congress passes laws which everyone should, in theory, obey, it must be "regulated" in a sense.
So the interesting thing here is that a company could in fact:
gain a monopoly in an application (that'll never happen).
Update the license to that app to call for ridiculous restrictions on free speech.
Poof ! If enough people decide they just HAVE to use the software, they've just taken away their own freedom.
Maybe there is going to have to be some sort of push that says contracts which abridges freedoms outlined in the constitution are unenforceable and invalid.
On the other hand, if people are going to CHOOSE to give up their freedoms, so don't they deserve what they get ?
Absolute statements are never true
I think that you have just solved a problem of mine. Some newer web pages refuse to load in either Opera 5.12 (my main browser) or Mozilla 0.93 which is my backup. But when I scratch out IE from the box I buried it in then they load perfectly.
Incidentally, Frontpage is nothing. No-one uses it for anything important. I am however worried that MicroSoft may put the same caveat on Windows and/or Office and then enforce it. Frontpage is possibly just testing the waters.
thanks, I just laughed coke out my nose...
A couple of people have suggested that if one doesn't like the FrontPage EULA, you shouldn't use it, That may work for individuals, but what about corporations?
Are they not allowed to say anything negative about Microsoft (like reporting on sleazy things they did in the DOJ trial) just because their IT department decided that everyone's going to use FrontPage to generate web content? What about a news organization?
Think about if other companies did this. I remember back in 1997 when it fashionable to back Apple, you'd have writers penning very biased anti-Apple articles from their own PowerBooks (hey! I'm talking to you, Wired).
I guess this all stems from the idea that you can't buy software; you only license it. It'll only get worse when they put annual subscriptions into play because they won't have to take you to court; they'll just refused to renew your subscription.
I wonder if this means that Microsoft will someday decide to not renew some Microsoft-investigatin' journalist's subscription to their products because of some condition like this in the EULA.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
...but from what I read yesterday, in the previous paragraph, there is a definition of "the software".
Does anyone with the license agreement in front of them care to reply?
When VPNs are outlawed, only outlaws have VPNs.
Seems kind of wrong to rely on MS to make your web-site to bash MS.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
So where does this leave me with my favorite image of Bin Laden with his Donkey?
Osama Bin Donkey
Is there so little going on that we are forced to trot out a story from yesterday with no further clarification than before?
/. stories only got repeated when two editors who don't read /. post the same thing. Now they are knowingly reposting stories? I didn't realize slashdot had a sweeps week.
I thought
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball(TM)
Just Say No To Front Page
Use any non-MS created text editor, yes, that means you'll actually have to LEARN HTML! How unthinkable!
Why is this even news? Who cares? From a legal standpoint (YIAAL) MS isn't violating anyone's free speech. Just don't buy the damn thing. It's a contract. People give away what you think is a right to free speech all the time -- NDA's, verbal promises that things are "off the record" -- keeping your best friend's secrets, for Pete's sake. Only the government has to worry about violating someone's free speech, and even then, it's prior restraint that's bad. And the government can still legitimately abridge your right to free speech, anyway!
Second, Putting this in the EULA for Frontpage is vastly different from putting it in the EULA for Windows. Who the hell uses Frontpage anyway? What a cheap shot to gripe that MS is a monopoly, in this case.
One more thing. Just because a contract might have one bad clause doesn't invalidate the whole contract. Courts wouldn't do that; that would be dumb.
chances are that if they guy's smart enough to know how evil and how bad m$ software is, he should be smart enough to create a homepage without the help of ms-frontpage. and that doesnt require intelligence at first anyway ;)
my blog
As far as violating our rights, no they aren't. But what they are trying to do is to get their customers to involuntarily through deception give up their fundamental right to free speach as guaranteed etc. etc. I don't think that would stand up in court unless M$ explicity spelled it out, to wit "I agree that I am waiving my right to free speach by using this product" OWTTE. I also don't think M$ could prove monetary damages. The worst that would happen is you would have to stop using their tool.
Not using m$ is getting easier everyday.
"Stop whining!" - Arnold, as Mr. Kimble
This peice of stunning insight is relevant to just about every issue facing us today!
Microsoft has plans to add to all of its future and existing (remember that clause that this agreement can be voided at any time by the vendor...) that users of Microsoft's products are not allowed use them to research other products provided by vendors other than Microsoft themselves or vendors on their preferred vendor list (otherwise known as the folks that pay them money to be on the list)
If this FrontPage EULA is legal, I see nothing stopping the above, do you? They're not monopolistic...
-- A computer without COBOL and Fortran is like a piece of chocolate cake without ketchup and mustard
"You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services, infringe any intellectual property or other rights of these parties, violate any state, federal or international law, or promote racism, hatred of pornography."
I'd love to see Microsoft take someone to court for violating that clause. As if they don't have enough PR problems...
A mild controvery occured yesterday in a story claiming Slashdot prohibits anti-truth speech if you use Windows. Here is a followup submitted by Rectum from the original author: "Several readers have told me their EULA for Slashdot 2002 does not contain the no-disparaging-Linux term, or that the term only applies to the Tux logo or to the Web components like the Slashcode news headline component. Just to be sure, this afternoon I went down to the store and bought a copy of Slashcode 2002 myself. In the box was the "Slashcode 2002" license on a four-page folded sheet, titled "End- User License Agreement For Slashcode Software." Under Section #1, Grant of License, the second paragraph headed "Restrictions" states in part: "You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages Slashdot, CmdrTaco, JonKatz, Tux the Penguin, or their products or services, infringe any intellectual property or other rights of these parties, violate any state, federal or international law, or promote factual analysis of any news articles posted on Slashdot." (Not only a stunning example of legal overreaching, in my opinion, but very poor grammar as well.) It appears to me to clearly apply to use of Slashdot as a whole and not just the logo or Web components. I suspect that there are different versions of the EULA of Slashcode 2002..."
Latest news: In a feat of daring vertical integration, Microsoft has bought up hundreds of biotechnology patents - essentially taking control of all intellectual property pertaining to in vitro insemination. According to the EULA distributed by Microsoft, all children conceived through their process will not be allowed to disparage Microsoft and will have to purchase Microsoft software exclusively. Additionally, Microsoft is considering a subscription service where users would have to pay each year in order to stay alive.
Anybody who uses Frontpage consistently has such a strong masochistic streak that the restrictions probably won't bother them. Relax and go get yourself a copy of Dreamweaver.
DUCT TAPE: The Election Supervisors' Secret Weapon
...prevents me from saying bad things about a bad company.
:)
Too bad I use a normal text editor for all such bad stuff... and maybe someday, some good.
"I'm bad" - M. Jackson
This section appears to be an explicite forbidding of running a VNC server. I wonder how many people know that. I guess they're trying to 'promote' Win2K, but this is a bit excessive.
"Under Section #1, Grant of License, the second paragraph headed 'Restrictions' states in part: 'You may not use the Software...'"
In the license I saw, an earlier paragraph said:
"For purposes of this section, the Software means the FrontPage Web components, including the MSNBC news headline component, the MSN MoneyCentral Stock Quote component, and the MSN Search component."
The story submitter doesn't say whether this clause is in his EULA or not. If it is, then as previously reported, the site content restrictions only apply to sites that use services provided through MSN, not all sites that are created with FrontPage.
-- Old Man Kensey
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, leading American computer software company. Microsoft develops and sells a wide variety of software products... ...."
That's the initial "definition." But in the same way, check out the Epistle Dedicatory in any King James Bible published in England: "To the most High and Might Prince, JAMES. Great and manifold were the blessings, most dread Soverign, which were bestowed
Ross
Since reading this thread, I've tried three (as in beer) times to look up the Microsoft Entry on the Encarta web site and each time I get the following:
Microsoft VBScript runtime error '800a0005'
Invalid procedure call or argument
/shared/spot/xmlsearchcore.inc, line 572
Heh. I'm not a MS basher, but even I found the irony tasty...
I would have to say that explosives are the most abused technology in all of history.
The CPL (www.thepl.com) CyberAthlete Professional League, has a similiar clause in their rules. Essentially anyone who participates in their online leagues (CAL) or in their Lan events, cannot "disparage, discredit, dishonor, derogate or maliciously criticize the CPL in any public forum, including but not limited to websites,IRC, Usenet/Web discussion systems, magazines, newspapers, radio, documentaries and/or television"
#11 @ http://www.thecpl.com/releases/rules.txt
seems like is a bit much also. A team (Clan Knightmare) was recently suspended til January for comments they made on their own website.
As if their support of the (1)DCMA, (2) UCITA, (3)CSS encryption wasn't bad enough... How 'bout we throw in (4) extremely poorly secured software allowing email and VBA script viruses, (5) attempting to poison Java, (6), OS-extortion/control over virtually every major PC maker for a number of years, or (7) even limiting our reason's to ditch their company to one practice: their constant FUD and attempts to "embrace, extend, and control" virtually every facet of the software industry.
Well Mr. Gates & co., it's like this: Allaire's "Homesite", etc. are a whole lot better than FP any version, ASP is possibly the worst method of Web programming I've had to endure, and now that Linux and the BSD's have fully stabilized, I don't need your stinkin' OS anymore either. So your vaunted M$ monopoly hasn't earned even a penny of my hard earned income in something like six years now, and won't for the foreseeable future.
Shoot, with this new language in their EULA, it's rapidly approaching the point where using MS products is not only a stupid thing to do, but practically un-American as well.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Yeah, and pretty soon Linux will release a licence that means any time you use Open Source software, all the software you write with it has to be Open Source too .... hang on, wait a minute ....
-- the most controversial site on the Web
This is the only weirdness I found. "If you get a key from us, we are permitted to install additional locks."
EULA for the software industry is very scary -- even when it doesn't come from MS.
My question is: how different is a software EULA from non-software EULA -- for example, a car, a home/life/etc. insurance, a work contract. Yes, they don't have an EULA, but there is a "legal" clause which acts as an EULA.
If you dig around I am sure you will find a much scarier EULA than the one MS is trying to impose on us. Heck, even the very basic ones are so restrictive but we hardly pay attention to them.
Karma stuck at 50? Add 2-5 inches.. err.. 2-5x Karmas Count to your pen1es.. err.. Karma all naturally and private
Of course it will. It will stipulate that since it's so stable and reliable, you'll only be allowed to save your work when you have completed it. Saving often indicates a lack in confidence in Microsoft which will not be allowed.
;)
How many stories do we need to see about this before the Slashdot guys bother to just CONTACT MICROSOFT? Would it really be so horrible if Taco or Roblimo stopped surfing the web for a few hours and actually called up MS and asked what the deal with the license is?
I realize that they aren't really journalists, but can't they just show a little bit of responsibility if they are going to keep posting about this?
This license seems rather ironic from a company whose recent FUD tried to link the GPL with communism. Restricting free speach is unconstitutional and clearly shows their true colors. People should make a big deal of this.
So, is the Department of Justice now banned from using Frontpage to publish Jackson's Findings of Fact?
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
>>The Product may not be used by more than two (2) processors at any one time on any single Workstation Computer.
What is that about? What a PC!
Oh Crap! I can't use it for my porn site???
If you do something right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
- MS will be an undefeatable monopoly and there won't be much choice but to use their services and products.
- Their EULAs and Terms of Service will restrict you from doing anything that might reflect poorly on them.
- The DMCA will make it a criminal act to circumvent any measures they take to maintain control.
Monkeyboy for President! Waiting for the Microsoft stormstroopers to come and liberate me from this oppressive freedom of choice...
Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G
The answer is simple.
(1) Remove all traces of FrontPage from your system if you haven't already done so (or, more simply, never install it).
(2) Return FP to either the dealer it was purchased from (if still in shrink-wrap) or to M$ themselves, along with a statement that you disagree with the EULA and that you therefore request a full refund.
(3) Select one of Lord only knows how many HTML editing/publishing packages that don't come from Redmond, and that have no such silly restrictions. Said packages can be commercial, shareware, or open-source, your choice.
(4) Put up a site, authored with said alternative package, that explicitly takes pokes at M$, M$NBC, and all the others listed in the FP EULA, and rest secure in the fact that there's not a bloody thing they can do about it.
(5) Watch the Redmondians stew in their own juices. Once word of this becomes widespread (if it hasn't already), I would expect to see sales of FrontPage plummet.
FP is pure bloatware anyway, and I would not be at all surprised if it breaks multiple pieces of the W3C standards. Why use it at all?
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
Just because Microsoft put this in their license doesn't mean that it would hold up in court. There are 1st amendment issues here.
This is just a string of atrocities that keep getting uncovered about Microsoft the more you peel back the onion.
Seems as if Microsoft is using Orwell's "1984" as their business development plan.
The real issue with this, and why this is a very bad thing (tm), is that it potentially allows M$ to shut down any site that disparages them if they used FrontPage to make it. So basically it leverages their software to control the internet.
I suspect that M$ is acting badly again now that the already lenient administration is distracted with other problems.
Quiet, you. You know the government will imprison anyone who talks bad about their beloved Jews. They make up half the government anyway.
Hey Reyacta,
That's a good article you've written here. I'm still wondering about one point: you actually gave Microsoft money, oh my, for a product you disagree with.
I think that the EULA authorises you to get a refund if you can't or don't want to comply with it. Did you use that opportunity to test how respectful of their own license they are? I believe that if they don't refund you, then they break their own license and then you're pretty much free to use the product according to your local laws and not the license. Did you actually give it a try?
-- B.
This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
"You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services,
They would be surprised at what I can do. It is a common misconception that because it is in the agreement that it can be enforced. The truth is they can tell me I can't use their software to disparage M$ all day, and it has no more validity than if they tried to tell me I can't use Word to compose ignorant racist hate propoganda. Would I ever do that? No. But you can bet that if I wanted to, I could, and there isn't a damn thing they can do about it. M$ already knows this
In fact, if there is no clause stating that any portion of the agreement that is found to be unenforceable does not invalidate the other parts (does it have such a clause?) then the whole agreement may well be invalid!
IANAL but I play one on slahdot 8^}
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
its a good thing so many open source advocates are purchasing this software, that should really help their bottom line.
$unitsSold++;
AF-Design, web development.
looks like the Klan is going to have to find new software to publish to the web with....
EULA says that you can't have any MS slander on your page; you use the MSNBC news headline component
does this imply that MS can sue you if there is an MSNBC headline that slanders MS?
Please give your mod points to others, Im at the cap. They will appreciate it more
Is this the new irony? Is this post-irony? I can't tell anymore.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
You may not use Windows XP to run any software that competes with Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services, or infrings any intellectual property or other rights of these parties.
All this broad over reaching language they put in all their EULAs gives them an excuse to hall anyone into court who such as looks at Bill Gates the wrong way.
Its like the old trick the coppers have been doing forever, they've got complete freedom to harrass any tatooed long haired freaky looking type they want because they can always come up with some innocuous reason for pulling them over like a burnt out tail light.
Microsoft's setting themselves up as the next police state and using EULA's to force everyone into drive a car with burnt tail lights.
I've seen mention of this three times on ./, except that it has yet to be posted correctly or without bias. A paragraph prior to the one currently in question defines the use of the term "the Software" as the FrontPage Server extensions. I have copied the relevant portion of the EULA below.
I am not one who supports M$, their practices often disgust me, and I find their software to be cumbersome. However, I think that there are far too many people who will jump at any opportunity to cry murder. I am dissapointed that no one took two minutes to read the appropriate section of the EULA.
I saw someone use frontpage, and it sure sucked.
persoanlly I think you would have to be an idiot to use it...
thus the 'reviewer' would never actually agree to the eula.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
People do not need to use Front Page to create HTML. Unless you are re-writing the Unabomber's Manifesto, just do it yourself in the text-editor of your choice.
The EULA is not a 'license agreement' AFAIK since I did not agree to anything. I never signed any agreement with M$. And if I had, I would have amended the text to suit my own whims. (Please do not tell me that I agreed to their terms by just unwrapping the package. I never read that bullshit on their stickers. Oh wait, I never buy software at all.)
What scares me about this is its incombination with UCITA. Under UCITA, the EULA becomes enforcable. I'm not sure exactly what that means, but I'm fairly sure it's not good.
...they'd realize how silly it would be for a company to sell and SUPPORT a product that is knowingly used against the same company. It'd be like selling our fighter jets to Afghanistan and having to support them when they had problems! C'mon, people...THINK!
Once again I'm suprised (but not that surprised - guess I'm getting cynical). They never seem to give up on the "one world under MS" crusade and they seem to have no concept of fair play.
Still, while it's threatening - like a bully glowering from the sidelines - they'll probably be too concerned about suffering in the court of public opinion to actually push it in a court of law.
I think Microsoft was a good thing for all of us; it helped to put, "a computer on every desk top." But the sooner Microsoft sinks into the mire of litigation it has stepped into, the sooner we can move on to the next stage of computer software. I say kudos to Microsoft, please put more idiotic right-restricting lawyer-paying clauses in your licenses. Let the lawyers have all those licensing fees!
Finally, I say kudos to those who brought this stupidity out in the open.
btw... Is it just me, or do other people find that it's funny to read Sheldon's remarks? I find them funny because no one I know (other than a politician) can talk around, over, and behind an issue, never talking about the issue raised by an article. If it doesn't hold to Sheldon's viewpoint, he inevitably accredits the discussion or opposing viewpoint to "Linux zealots."
I guess the Microsoft apologists have been invading for a while now, but Sheldon is my favorite. Actually, I'm a pretty big fan of Sheldon's work; I search for his remarks whenever an Microsoft-is-not-king-shit story comes up. I know it will be worth the trip to see how he dodges the story line to bite at the ankles of another "Linux zealot."
At the beginning of the section that everyone's been quoting:
"FrontPage web components. For purposes of this section, the Software means the FrontPage Web components, including the MSNBC news headline component, the MSN MoneyCentral Stock Quote component, and the MSN Search component."
As sugested, I checked Microsoft's definition of Microsoft.
/shared/spot/xmlsearchcore.inc, line 572 "
The Encarta Dictionary says "No matches found for: Microsoft"
The Encarta Encyclopedia, however, has a much more fitting definition:
"Microsoft VBScript runtime error '800a0005', Invalid procedure call or argument,
I think that really sums it up!
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
I don't believe anything you have written. Can you please scan in the agreement so we can all read it first hand. also, I don't believe you actually purchased Frontpage because any Linux Lover would never buy a Microsoft product. Could you also scan in your receipt. Thankyou for the clarification.
-anonymous coward
The poster is 100% correct!
No, really, is there anybody here that still uses microsoft frontpage to do thier web work? After all, it's still okay to use VI or EMACS to bash the tyrants...
Lets everyone run out and buy a version of Windows 2000 and Frontpage 2002. Then return them to the retailer stating that we don't agree with the EULA. If a few million of us do this, those retailers out there are going to get pissed off at M$.
You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia or their products of services, infringe any intellectual property or other rights of these parties, violate any state, federal, or international law, or promote racism, hatred or pornography.
/.
source: mspur.pdf found via google by way of ev and infoworld.
I feel all smart 'cause I scooped
-- Joe Crawford, web journeyman: San Diego California USA
--quote--
Except as otherwise permitted by the
NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop
features described below, you may not use the Product
to permit any Device to use, access, display or run other
executable software residing on the Workstation Computer,
nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display,
or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless
the Device has a separate license for the Product.
--unquote--
So, no VNC, no Citrix, no Sun Rays... gotta love it. Defeat your competition's interoperability by locking them out at the EULA.
Does that mean if your webpage violates any of the taliban's laws, M$ can sue you?
Suppose you return some software to a store because you didn't want to accept the license terms (for whatever reason). The store will refuse to give you a refund, because there's nothing defective about the product, and for all they know, you just dd'd a copy for piracy purposes.
What can you do? Use the software that you paid for, free of licensing restrictions?
Or do you have to pursue the {store,software-house} through the courts?
I believe that this is an important part of the so-called duress that (according to another poster) software licensees suffer. Remember the tough experience of those who tried to get a Windows refund!
Read it yourself:
You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia or their products of services, infringe any intellectual property or other rights of these parties, violate any state, federal, or international law, or promote racism, hatred or pornography.
(And I feel all stupid because I didn't preview before posting)
source: mspur.pdf found via google by way of ev and infoworld.
-- Joe Crawford, web journeyman: San Diego California USA
The punishment should be being forced to surf the site they created with a non-MS browser. Oh wait, that would be 'cruel and unusual'...nevermind.
Fucking slashdot SUCKS
slashdot fucking sucks!
fuck you cowboy neal
fuck you too commander taco
FUCK YOU JONKATZ
fuck all'yall fucking fuckers
YOU don't give a shit about the open source/linux community, you just like writing articles that PISS PEOPLE OFF cuz it GETS YOU MORE TRAFFIC and you STEAL CONTENT FROM OTHER SITES..... YOuuuuuuuuuuuuuu GUyyyyyysssssssss SUCK!!!!!!!
What if the DOJ uses MS FrontPage as many of our governmental entities have completely or very nearly completely standardized on M$ products like MS FrontPage. Since, they are required by law to make available court records and such. Does the DOJ violate their EULA for FrontPage by publishing M$ court records, since those records are of a very negative nature and portray M$ in a very poor light! Does that mean they can be sued by M$ for breaking their EULA agreement?
Eric
If they can get away with this nonsense then they might be tempted to put something similar in the EULA for Office.
Imagine the world's defacto primary means of general computer-based communication with restrictions that effectively prevent the recording or promulgation of negitive views about MS.
If MS, why not any other topics? Why not demand taht nothing bad be said about Global Capitalism, foreign policy, the progress of WW3 or whichever companies MS might be buddies with at the time?
Maybe MS could even get corpotarions to pay to be included in the "safe" list. :)
Better, there could be a "hate" list of MS competitors in the EULA about whome no positive views could be expressed.
When debating the application of the first amendment to the United States Constitution to the Microsoft Frontpage EULA, it as at least important to look at the first amendment as it is to see the EULA. The first amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Note that it is "Congress"--and by way of the fourteenth amendment, states and other political subdivisions and officers--rather than Microsoft that does not have the power to abridge your speech.
Chip Buckner
Kansas City, MO -- and though I don't do first amendment work, IAAL.
He could just add a clause in the use contract of PGP stating:
"Do not use PGP for bad stuff."
-Kraft
Live and let live
actually contains that provision, keep in mind that many contracts contain
illegal (or at least overreaching) clauses. My guess is that the provision
was included in the EULA as a scare tactic, and that a court would strike
down the provision if the EULA was ever litigated. "
psxndc
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
I bet they'll try to apply this to Internet Explorer and viewing Anti-MS content will violate the license agreement. They'll probably have counter measure send back names of people viewing content and terminate the...
[MSIE666 ERROR: Anti-MS Threshold reached. Terminating Session. Please wait for FBI to arrive. Yes, we own them too]
How about an ABM license?
"This software [whatever it may be] may be freely distributed, resold, or modified by Anybody But Microsoft, as long as this copyright notice is kept intact and visible.
'Microsoft' includes employees, contractors, subsidiaries, agents, or representatives of Microsoft, Inc. No license of any kind is is granted to these persons; no compilation, no reading, copying, or downloading of the source code, no copying, downloading, disassembly, decompilation or execution of the binaries."
-Makes as much sense as an MS EULA.
Modify the license of some indispensible open source software (FreeBSD Hotmail servers?) to include the following clause:
This software may be used by Microsoft employees only while having a par-boiled carrot stuck up their ass.
Oh wait - they're used to that.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Actually this isn't really about MS at all. What we should be looking at is the fact that this is a sad commentary on the state of Freedom in America overall. That a corporation has to put in caveats like this to protect itself from being sued by those who oppose free speech (which is really what this is about not that MS opposes it) is the real issue. It's a patethic commentary on the state of America where every disagreement has to be resolved in the courts and that people will do anything for a buck. Imagine what kind of money you could get if you sued MS for being racist because someone used the software which they licensed to them to make a neo-Nazi website. Just think of the liability. Of course it's dumb to restrict disparaging remarks about the company but that's a seperate issue.
I suppose it's also a sad commentary on Slashdot that almost everyone has over looked this.
Interesting.
The Microsoft EULA is an anti-competitive practice, however, isn't it? In some cases, it could discourage someone from saying they don't like a Microsoft product.
Bush's education improvements were
So much for my site with XXX paparazzi video of Bill Gates having sex while cursing the Afganistanians.
Considering that MS Word can also be used by mindless drones to produce horribly coded webpages, I wonder if it has similar wording in it's EULA. Not sure if it has access to similar web components that FP has. Interesting to note, is that Frontpage comes with the higher-end MS Office suites. I do not think there is a separate EULA for every program in there (but I could be wrong here). I wonder how many people this will trip up.
- A non-productive mind is with absolutely zero balance.
- AC
In other words, we want a monopoly on Smart Tags, too!
buy a car if the contract says that the guarantee is invalid if you drive faster that the speed limit ?
also this seems like an unenforcable thing to begin with. not because there aren't ways to tell how a page was created but because there are so many people using MS products that disparage them as well. thats why they disparage them cause they are forced to use them. i just don't like the idea that these EULAs can be used to tell me how to do just about anything. if microsoft says that i have to wear plaid pants when using winME then what am i going to do? (I know use Linux) this is getting bizarre. i believe that the justice department needs to take a sliver away from the hunt for osama to bitchslap MS.
-
If you're not buying your software at a department store, tell the roaming clerk (if they didn't ask if they can help you already) that you are interested in this software. You want to read the EULA on the media packaging inside the box. If they say no, then find another store, if they say yes, then you read and refuse to buy if you don't agree to it. They'll just shrink wrap the package again anyway. This should work at Electronics Boutique and CompUSA for starters.
I went to the UPN website this morning to see when Enterprise would begin airing. Anyway, the first page displays these words: "By entering this site you are agreeing to the Terms of Use." The part I found funny? They use a meta refresh to send you into the site.
What needs emphasizing is that the standards we use to communicate must be in the public domain. If not, if an industry standard controlled by a company becomes widespread, the company can put in such clauses in effectively prohibit certain unwanted kinds of speech, typically we will see first speech that critizes the company.
Now, mark that The Universal Declaration of Human Rights specifically grants the right to express yourself in any medium. If, say one company owns an industry standard that is the only way to communicate by speech, this human right does no longer exist.
That is why Ogg is so important. It will make a standard for the public domain, and this standard is the only thing that saves free speech in the multimedia age. No Ogg, no free speech.
Similarily, we must make sure that similar bodies, working on other public domain standards, such as the W3C are successful. Without them, we're screwed.
An for those saying that "just don't use FP", well, you see, we all know M$ wants to control these commodity protocols, and M$ hardly cares about a bunch of geeks anyway, so us boycotting M$ doesn't help. Joe Sixpack must understand the problem, cause if he doesn't, they'll win, and turn the web into their network, and make sure FP is the only authoring tool you can use. It'll be the end of free speech too...
Ensuring that the standards are in the public domain is even more important than that software is Free (as in speech).
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
and i thought m$ were all out of surprises! who actually uses frontpage? i admit, i would install it to see what it was like, but use it? nope!
... how did you like FrontPage 2002, compared, to, say, FrontPage 2000? (What, no product review?)Or would you recommend waiting for Frontpage 2004?
What they call WYSIWIG is not applicable - within the editor itself (very misleading) or when testing pages with Nutscrape, etc. Even when testing with IE 5.x, things do not appear as *advertised*.
However, it is a product designed for the masses, and fulfills that notion well - no FTP or knowledge of HTML necessary. My son started with FP and quickly went to hand coding HTML with the help of seeing what was generated. Never went back. Can't blame him.
Bottom line (at the risk of redundancy) (a) If you don't like the terms, don't use it (b) One Microsoft Way
db
Cig:
ôô
Good point.
So, this is the law: We have the right of free speech, unless there is a compelling reason to take it away.
Is the desire for Microsoft to make more money a compelling reason?
I haven't been expressing myself well, but I sense that there is something wrong about this.
Bush's education improvements were
If you don't agree with a company's license, don't buy the product. If they wanted to, they could require that to use the product, you must stand on your head while performing Bach's third on a pan flute.
Besides, there are plenty of free products that do a better job, IMO, than FP2k.
Restriction of free speech is an action that only applies (or should apply) to governments. Companies and private individuals can (and sholud be able to) restrict use of their products whichever way they want in their contracts. The same freedoms give you the right not to buy or use that software.
Now, whether this part of the contract is wrong on moral grounds, or makes good business sense to Microsoft is a different manner. But it should not be an issue of free speech.
Personally, I would take this "first-hand account" with a grain of salt. I'd also be interested to see if someone can find the EULA for FrontPage 2002 online (most of them are).
In the meantime, we can just say anti-Microsoft stuff using W2K servers, IIS, with the pages written with Notepad, if this is the case.
US: Erm, Bill? Are you a fscking moron?
:P
Bill: It's to help stop terrorism!
US: Okay, nevermind then. Carry on.
Of course, one day, our government will wake up and realize Microsoft is trying to supplant them.
Throw in a few Microsoft conspiracies (NY in wingdings or webdings or some such in Word..), and you've got something to think about.
How long can this 'exclusive agreement between consenting parties' defense last before software licenses become too rediculous to function? And what happens when they do - is there a fair way to regulate intangible goods if there isn't a transfer of ownership?
Don't use Front Page.
Don't use Micro$oft products at all, for that matter...
t_t_b
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
7. DESCRIPTION OF OTHER RIGHTS AND LIMITATIONS. * Internet Gaming/Update Features: If you choose to utilize the Internet gaming or update features within the Product, it is necessary to use certain computer system, hardware, and software information to implement the features. By using these features, you explicitly authorize Microsoft or its designated agent to access and utilize the necessary information for Internet gaming and/or updating purposes. Microsoft may use this information solely to improve our products or to provide customized services or technologies to you . Microsoft may disclose this information to others, but not in a form that personally identifies you.
Is one of the 'customized' services going to be:
"So, you're a pirate, huh? Shall we notify the police or send you a complimentry copy of CD-BURNERS MONTHLY?"
"BSD is about people pissing each other.." (Moid Vallat)
Go f$ck yourself.
Thank you and have a Microsoft-free weekend.
Nothing wrong with the grammar at all if you ressurect a few elisions. One of the characteristics of English, as opposed to Latin, is that it tolerates a wide range of informalities.
intellectual property [rights] or other rights
The end user may not: 1) use the software [to disparage the evil empire]; 2) infringe upon the [undisparagable] parties; 3) violate; 4) promote.
You can make a stronger case that the original punctuation is sloppy.
The year is 2209. The world is no longer called Earth; it is now called Microsoft Empire.
By order of Emperor William H. Gates VII, children are no longer born; they are licensed.
The remainder of the above license agreement is left as an exercise for the reader.
Under Section #1, Grant of License, the second paragraph headed "Restrictions" states in part: "You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services, infringe any intellectual property or other rights of these parties, violate any state, federal or international law, or promote racism, hatred or pornography." (Not only a stunning example of legal overreaching, in my opinion, but very poor grammar as well.)
Looking at this statement from a grammatical point of view, it is absolutely correct. It may seem long, but it is merely a sentence with compound verbs. last time I checked you didn't have to use seperate verbs in seperate sentences.
<br><br>Microsoft sucks, creates bloated software and takes advantage of their consumers is much better than saying: Microsoft sucks. Microsoft creates bloated software. Microsoft takes advantage of consumers. <br><br>
Learn grammatical rules before you criticize them. If you want to see comma usage and sentences even crazier than this one check out "Lord Jim" by Conrad.
Just noticed this: (Thanks to the person who posted the WinXP license.)
Begin Draconian License Agreement Excerpt: (DLAE)
Except as otherwise permitted by the NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop features described below, you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer, nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display, or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless the Device has a separate license for the Product.
End DLAE Excerpt (hey I am in a hurry...)
So this means a couple of things to me. They expect you to pay for an XP license to remotely display your XP machine graphics screen somewhere else, and that remote display software that it not theirs is not licensed for use!
They are trying to say what you can and cannot run on your own machine!
I know this won't affect many of us because we are not going to be running this OS, but larger companies that have signed agreements (that contained additional terms after the fact BTW) are going to be in a tight position. Forced to use licensed tools by the agreements only, not for technical reasons...
Since they cannot undersell VNC, they are going to have to kill it legaly.
Blogging because I can...
Still, maybe I got some MS karma for my whorin' efforts?
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
C'mon, here, folks, get a clue!
Stop letting "them" tell you anything!
F*ck Micro$oft!
What's so hard to understand about that?
t_t_b
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
I would think that someone that has that much of a problem with MS that the want to defame them would not support them by purchasing their product. Additionally, they would probably be of the opinion that the products are garbage and again not use it. FrontPage is not the only method of creating Web pages nor is it anywhere near being the best.
I don't think that the editor of the New York Times would allow a reporter to publish a story in the New York Times that defames it and may contain pornography. That is not an abridgment of the First Amendment right of said reporter. He would still have the opportunity to have it published independently or in USA Today. You just won't see the article in the Times.
Contractual Obligation
"...promote racism, hatred or pornography."
What the Hell?? Who fell asleep on the job here? With how the pr0n are multi-million/billion industries, wouldn't this mean they just cut themselves out of a chunk of market?? Let's see if any M$ heads roll for this little oversight. :)
There's no wrong way, to eat a Rhesus...
It's "Crimo$oft", mongoloid.
***URGENT *** URGENT ***
Another one has collapsed in California.
I don't know more because telecommunications are down right now in Vancouver. There are unconfirmed reports that two more buildings are down in Nevada and South Kansas. I will post more as soon as I know.
Where is cyborg_monkey these difficult hours?
Has cyborg_monkey abandoned us or is he now under 8000000 thousand tons of debris?
*******************
I can't write more, sorry. The download of the mpegs is finished, oh well, in the next troll then...
It is taken out of context. The term "the Software" is defined to refer specifically to the MSN/MSNBC components named in a previous sentence. It does not refer to FrontPage
Add it to all of your pages, regardless of content. GREAT FUN FOR THE WHOLE FAMILY!
My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
IANAL.
If you look carefully, that paragraph defines the term 'Device' to mean a networked computer, a plugged in Palm or calculator, stuff like that.
What this paragraph is saying is that you can't let other computers run software remotely on your machine, unless you use M$oft's networking programs to do it. Why they think they are within their rights to tell you what you can do with third-party software is beyond me.
You are standing in front of a house. There is a mailbox here.
This is obviously unenforceable.It seems, to me that they are just trying to cover their own asses, in the unlikely event that someone tries to sue them for their product being used for the purposes stated in the EULA.
-tjf
- toe jam football
Why is this only rated a 2? This seems to be the most relevant posting yet, considering that it actually clarifies what the license is saying, rather than how people have chosen to see it. Why is this article even here actually? Yesterday's posting should have killed the issue (somebody else already posted a link to the actual EULA in the comments).
"Has anything you've done made your life better?" - American History X
er... so which would you get bigger penalties for? Using a pirated version, or not adhearing to the liscence agreement. I guess my question is, are you exempt from the licence if you're using a pirated version and perhaps bypassed any acknowledgment of the licence agreement. Not that I care since I don't use FP, but I'm sort of curious.
I can see it now:
GM restricts disgruntled new car owners from crashing their cars through the dealer's showroom windows.
MacDonald's restricts customers from barfing up Big Macs onto the floors their buildings.
Kodak prevents customers from taking nude photos using Kodak film.
Exxon prevents customers from using vehicles fueled with Exxon gasoline from being driven to Sierra Club meetings.
I love where this is going...
/Don
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0">
<meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">
Add it to all of your pages, regardless of content. GREAT FUN FOR THE WHOLE FAMILY!
My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
Look at the EULA again and see if you can find any consideration that would make you want to agree to that contract. I bet you'll find nothing.
If you don't find any good reason to agree to the EULA, then don't do it. Then you can use Frontpage 2002 publish all the porn and Microsoft bashing that you want to.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Amen!
It really is quite simple, but still sometimes one had to express the wonder, which is what happened with your quote above.
They suck we know it, they know we do, but Joe Q Public doesn't. How exactly are we going to get that done?
Blogging because I can...
It would be extremely trivial to get past this licensing "feature" (or is it a bug?)...
If you create the webpage in Frontpage and then modify it in notepad, the Frontpage stipulations are nullified by the editing in notepad. Now if microsock decides to use this insidious EULA for notepad, you can always download a freeware open-source text editor and do the same...I'm fairly sure this could not be construed as a violation of the Lincense because of the nature of the license only applying to works IN FrontPage, and could not possibly be expanded to any works ever touched by said software.
The other side of the coin is, of course, creating pages that WOULD violate this EULA, in another program, and inserting the specific parts to make it look like it was native to FrontPage...this would violate nothing, since you didn't use FrontPage at all...
HobophobE
-HobophobE
Nothing laughs forever.
Doesn't MS realize that 99% of web content is pictures of naked ladies?
/. are representative of the Net as a whole.
Not if the pr0n links at
There don't seem to be any women (naked or otherwise) at goatse.
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
I didn't find the EULA anywhere near the Frontpage (www.microsoft.com/frontpage) site either, although they gave me a nice pop quiz on what I thought of their little site. Maybe I shouldn't have told them, they may be in trouble now - the site was maintained by Frontpage and I made some rather disparaging remarks about Microsoft...
Money for nothing, pix for free
What's more important than this EULA is that if it really checks out by the governmeant, it greatly extends the known and proveable legal reach of an EULA. Does this mean the licence agreement in my Hello Word program can require you to sign over your complete savings to me?
Could someone please explain exactly how FrontPage can be a Web Component of itself? It's well known how much *nix types enjoy recursion, but this seems to be taking that idea too far.
Anyway, you are not prevented from making a web page saying anything if you use FrontPage. Using FrontPage does not prevent you speaking your mind on your website. Members of the KKK may feel free to use FrontPage. CmdrTaco may use FrontPage for Slashdot, should he so desire.
The restriction that does exist is highly offensive, to be sure. Preventing racists, bigots and Linux advocates from using MS web components on a site containing hate material means that no one can associate MS themselves with such material. By allowing the use of the MSNBC headline component, credibility could be lent to your non-stop barrages of filth and hit-whoring idiocy. You'll all have to find other ways of besmirching the name of Bill Gates and his software company.
Now, before any of you simian morons start pounding juvenile and ill-conceived flames into your keyboards, remember this: That will be all, you may now return to your previously scheduled drivel.
If you are so anti-Microsoft that you feel the need to create a site against it, isn't it a touch hypocrtical to be using a Microsoft product to do that?
This is a very narrow interpretation of both the EULA and particularly of Microsoft. It's not just about using frontpage to criticize frontpage, (not that would be a bad thing either, IMHO), but using frontpage to criticize anything Microsoft.
Microsoft has a market cap, even now, of more than $$1/4 trillion. The list of companies they own is huge, and only bound to grow. How many things ought you not to criticize?
MSNBC bills itself as providing "the highest quality news and information, anytime, anywhere" but you find their reporting shoddy or biased. You tell me you see nothing wrong with forbidding people to use frontpage in the creation of a site which criticized MSNBC's coverage of an event? How about if they forbid you to use all of the Office apps? That means Word too, remember. Or Windows? The meaning of monopoly starts to take on a whole new signficance.
You can't think of anything they could buy that you're not uncomfortable with forbidding 95% of the computer-using population to criticize?
It's outrageous.
You may not use the Software to create any bill or law that Microsoft might want to break. Microsoft will be exempt from any such bill or law. Further, Microsoft will also be exempt from any pre-existing bill or law that the Software touches in any way shape or form, including, but not limited to, viewing, printing, modifying, and distributing. This includes, but is not limited to, the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, because the first thing we did with the Software was read those documents with it.
First of all, the idea that a private organization or individual is in any way prevented from prior restraint of free speech by the Constitution must be disposed of. Microsoft does have the ability to enter into a contract with a user of their software which would constitute a prior restraint on free speech if done by the government. There is the rub, the Constitution restricts governments, not private persons, in their behavior. In short, free speech guarantees and civil rights don't enter into this issue at all.
The second issue here is whether a contract with these terms would be upheld by a court. The answer is not really clear, we need some litigation to set some predictable precedents. The Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UTICA) would probably be the context in which such contracts would be evaluated. There are two problems with this contract which could be the basis for not enforcing the offensive provisions.
First, a court would likely find that these terms are of a nature so unexpected and objectionable that an end-user would not have agreed to them if they knew they were there (after-all only the deepest of geeks actually read their EULAs). UTICA provides for recission of such terms by the court.
Secondly, the terms may be held to be unconscionable as against public policy. This artguement seems much less likely to suceed . As I pointed out earlier prior restraint of free speech does not apply to private parties and thus any argument on free speech grounds would be quite weak. There may be other public policy grounds one could drum up in support of unconscionability, but none occur to me right now.
Of course, one also has to wonder if MS would ever seek to enforce such a thing. I rather doubt it, but it might give them a tool of harrassment to threaten people with a lawsuit to get them to remove content they don't like. Rational people are likely to remove the offending content rather than wrestle with MS's legal staff. Thus it really doesn't matter if a court would enforce it, the fact that MS can drag you into expensive litigation on the slim chance that a court MIGHT uphold it is the chilling effect that they are after. That is why they are slime for including it in their EULAs.
Sigs are for kids
Microsoft Word 2000 crashed for me today, when I was giving it a honest try.
I don't understand how Microsoft can sell such bad software to so many people.
Seems like I'll have to learn LaTeX.
I stepped on this while posting a reply, but it seems fair enough. Is a EULA actually a contract?
And, does a seller have the right (pre-UCITA) to enforce terms of use of a product? I.E., if I buy and open a bottle of Heinz ketchup that contains a EULA that prohibits me from using that ketchup with non-Heinz mustards, is that a contract?
The American Dream went to hell in a handbasket when someone decided that "The Customer" was King, and the customer beli
Dear Microsoft,
I don't use frontpage.
Fuck You.
you bought a copy of Frontpage?
I know this is slashdot and goup-think is the norm but perhaps Microsoft has placed this in their EULA to avoid being sued by civil rights groups and intellectual property rigths owners. By stating you may not use the software to participate in these dubious and illegal activities they sever themselves from any harm caused by use of their software in this manner. Keep in mind this is lawyers speaking, not marketing or developers/engineers. Lawyers speak a different language altogether and often times if it is not read with the proper frame of reference it is misconstrued (as I believe it has been in this case.)
How would Microsoft even know what I used to create my anti-MS site? I always hand edit the code to add in ssi stuff anyhow and normal cut out the meta tags that indicate I used Frontpage (out of shame, seeing as I have two other equal and superior programs for HTML creation).
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
Some explain that the reasons for this policy are copyright issues. Presumably, you could have installed the software, or copied the media (CDROM) before returning it.
This makes it tough to return the product if we don't agree with the license, which is packed inside, and is twice as large as the American edition, since it appears in both official languages.
You're kidding right? Very few retail outlets will let you get away with that regardless of the reason.
Sad really.
It seems to me that the more outrageous and nonsensical EULA's become, the more the software-buying public will ignore them. Common sense tells us that Microsoft doesn't have the right to restrict the use of their products in this manner. So, since such provisions are obviously bullshit, it's not a great leap to conclude that the rest of the license is probably bullshit, too. When faced with increasing disrespect for EULA's, Microsoft then has whine to congress about 'piracy', and create the BSA to "educate" consumers that, in fact, up is down, wrong is right, and you can't really use FrontPage to make a website critical of Microsoft.
Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
Someone called you guys dumbshits! Mod this guy down! ;-)
Yep, it's anti-competitive--it gives an unfair advantage to M$'s competitors: ``Use our HTML editor/search engine/whatever, and you can bash M$!''
M$ is probably planning to use this in the Anti-Trust trial: ``See, we help our competitors!''
There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
-- David D. Friedman
How many people actually take the time to study each EULA to ensure they or their company is "in the right"? Even if people studied the EULA, how many of them understand the legal implications of the sometimes tricky language?
If I started a small business, I feel as if I would need to pay for a lawyer just to make sure I can use the software I buy. Stack this on top of the already overwhelming tax laws and HR issues, and I really begin to have second thoughts about taking on the business world!
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
If I say, "I know a lot of programming languages, including C and Perl.", that sentence does NOT say that C and Perl are the only programming languages I know.
If they outlaw use of "the FrontPage Web components" for disparaging to MS sites, they have just greatly limited the "functionality" of Frontpage for someone who wants to use it for that purpose - especially since it won't be clear to all users whether or not they are using a "FrontPage Web component", since some of them assuredly get inserted as part of standard templates and editing operations in the program.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
"I don't think that the editor of the New York Times would allow a reporter to publish a story in the New York Times that defames it and may contain pornography. That is not an abridgment of the First Amendment right of said reporter. He would still have the opportunity to have it published independently or in USA Today. You just won't see the article in the Times." You are making an analogy to a publisher's control over the content that they publish. I do not have a problem with this, it is like MS not allowing their webmaster to post a news story about how he hates FrontPage on the MS site (which they are perfectly allowed to do even though they won't make their own site on FrontPage;). But FrontPage is not a publication, it is a tool. This is comparable to a typewriter company saying that the New York Times cannot type articles which criticize their company on one of their typewriters. Oh, and the typewriter adds " to the bottom of every page.
"Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
Goddamnit!! Willl somebody please post the part where it's defined what "the Software" actually is referring to?
This is Microsoft's way of saying "if you're going to insult us, don't use our product". That's well within their rights. It's not evil. A bit petty, perhaps.
-Stu
Just for fun, I'll point out what a sucky program front page actually is. Like most MS products, it obscures the very simple work it does and provides second rate results. The HTML it produces is some of the worst robot code I've ever seen. It puts in so many unecessary font and other tags that the result is unreadable by hand or machine. It assigns mindless numbers to graphics that make it imposible to maintain or link in a resonable maner, and so destroy the intended use of HTML as a hyper text. The results are quirky and unmaintanable static pages. Blah. MS likes to keep their users heads shoved up their asses.
Fly and be free!
Bill Gates announced today that he is stepping down as head of Microsoft Corp. to become a billionaire terrorist.
"I am responsible for more crashed Windows than any other human in history, so I fee quite qualified for the job, and I already have a legion of fanatical followers too." Mr. Gates told reporters.
White House officials expressed regret at the decision, but are not worried. "We are confident that anything they develop will need at least two service packs before we will have to consider it a threat. In fact, if he wants we will drop him and his engineering team off in Afghanistan. If they can do there what they have done to companies in the US then this will be very positive for the USA." claimed an anonymous source.
Mr. Gates said that he would begin his campaign of terror by first initiating a hostile takeover of Afghanistan, the releasing Windows XP.
[Please note that no disrespect to the victims of terrorism is intended here]
Appearently, this, and the original InfoWorld article made it to WebPagesThatSuck with the point that pages produced with FrontPage are disparaging to MicroSoft's image enough, without having to say anything about the product explicitly.
healyourchurchwebsite.com - WWJB?
Reality Master you are such a schmuck.
Just admit it: You don't know what the heck you are talking about most of the time. Even when you're sober (which is rare) you hardly make any sense.
I'll just use that to write a web site desparaging the Front Page EULA.
Thank God that Microsoft can't it's grubby little paws on the text editor.
KFG
If you people dont get over the anti-microsoft crap soon people are going to stop listening to you all together. its just getting ridiculous. youre like a bunch of children waiting for the next chance to tattle on the neighbor. GET OVER IT. people are sick of it. thats all i have to say.
flame to micjordan@tech-reviews.com
XP is not a Server operating system, so why would you be running services off of it, other than maybe a personal file share?
Whatever happened to the peer-to-peer nature of the Internet Protocol? If you can only listen for and accept 10 simultaneous TCP connections, how can you serve files to other users?
Only XP Home is limited to a single CPU machine. Of course, since XP Home is meant to replace win9x, I don't see the problem
As AMD and Intel begin to push Moore's law into the fundamental limits of silicon semiconductors, they may have to use multiple processors to get lower execution times. The "per-CPU" pricing schedule of the Windows XP OS (single-cpu home $150 street; dual-cpu pro $250-$300 street) would shift the supply curve of multiprocessor computers upward, with an effect equivalent to a tax on processors.
If you multiply Oracle's "per MHz" model by Microsoft's "per month" subscription model, you get a value in (small fractions of) dollars per CPU cycle. This raises the question: Will Microsoft move to a "per CPU cycle" pricing model, charging more for faster processors so that Moore's law can bring exponential revenue over time?
Will I retire or break 10K?
There's nothing wrong with the sentence grammatically. Go back to high school.
The microsoft corporation is becoming more and more like a USSR type totalitarian state. First they begin with a restriction like this, soon their gonna make it so all webpage have to uniform. DOWN WITH THOSE COMMUNIST PIGA AND ALL WHO STAND FOR THEM. SLACKWARE IS ETERNAL. DOWN WITH THE GATES. -(/-\)- http://www.geocities.com/dtinferno1/main.html
False. It refers to "the FrontPage Web components", which it then goes further to say includes the MSN/MSNBC components. It never said ONLY those web components in the example list it gave were covered.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
But what if they all have different, but still objectionable licenses?
If the major players don't own any patents essential for the implementation of the technology, you can always develop an alternative to the product. Example 1: the GNU system. Example 2: PostgreSQL has become an excellent clone of Oracle DB. The fact that a standards document describes SQL and that documentation available online describes Oracle PL/SQL makes this task much easier.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Security is a rather loose term.
Consider this, I might insist
that I have a backdoor into the
system to shutdown my software
(disableware). I might require that,
ala FrontPage, all content created
is passed back to MS for a 'non-disparagement'
check. In other words, security is
what they define. And when they insert
that module in that disables your software
or monitors your actions, well it will be
legal under this clause.
Have fun.
Just don't use FrontPage.Simple, isn't it?
This FrontPage EULA is just a trial of the concept. If there are not a lot of complaints, expect other Microsoft EULAs:
Microsoft Photo Editor: Users are forbidden to draw horns on photos of Bill Gates.
Microsoft Turd^H^H^H^H Word: Users are forbidden to write anything bad about Microsoft.
Microsoft Internet Explorer: Explore only Microsoft approved sites.
The CIA trained Osama bin Laden: What Should be the Response to Violence?
Bush's education improvements were
Is there a way you could use anti-circumvention technology to make it impossible to sue a company for making cracking software? I mean, it seems like a paralell enough concept.
Example: AOL put out an upgrade a while back that messed up a person's windows internet stuff, right? but no one could sue them for damages because, presumably, they had clicked through something saying, hey, I take responsibility for what this software does.
SO, what if a piece of software, say, generates the registration key as a sideaffect, and as part of the EULA, you said you would take responsibility for everything the software does, and that you won't reverse engineer it.
I guess what I'm getting at is that it seems like EULAs just allow big Corporations to cover their ass from their mistakes blowing up in people's faces and causing damage, but it doesn't cover a person's individual responsibility to use a potentially illegal piece of software.
For instance, its like saying they can sell you a TV that blow up in your living room (but you signed an EULA), but you're NOT allowed to buy a gun, because, hell, those things are to kill people.
sorry so long.
got on a rant.
-t
The real issue is not whether they CAN or CAN NOT do this, but rather if it is an ethical or rational thing to do. Most would agree that it is rather pathetic of them. Most more would agree that this will only hurt them in the long run. By all means Microsoft, dig your own grave and then jump into it.
However, once again, let us not stoop to childish pointing that demeans us and anything we stand for (i.e. the superiority of open source). After all, it would seem that when M$ performs their tricks that many call foul and say that just 'proves' that they have inferior products that must rely on trickery and other marketing ploys. Are we not to apply that same test to ourselves as well. If we cannot police ourselves then we do not deserve to exist.
So far y'all are talking like the EULA only disables ya from authoring a Microsoft Sucks web page using it's Front Page product. What I want to know is what effect this EULA (if it's true) will have on product reviews? What happens if a site is authored with Front Page, has links to M$ services etc. and ALSO does product reviews? Does a bad review constitute disparagment? Now we're REALLY talking prior restraint. And by a company, no less!
ok, it is obvious you have refused to apply any sort of thought to this (much less any critical thought employing logic and reason). This is not a government agency or legislation that is restricting your speech. It is a company that is saying that you can't do that with THEIR products. If you want to do it, then by all means use another product. Stop confusing the situation. People like you are the reason we have censorship (real censorship), because any ability to educuate and enlighten people to the truth is buried under rhetoric and illogical inconsistencies, until no one wants to hear about it. You just make enemies out of potential allies. I suggest you calm down (short term). For the long term, I suggest you employ some reason and will power to overcome your emotionally controlled actions. Otherwise you are nothing but a talking monkey. Try acting like a civilized and intelligent human please.
My opinion is that, if you live in a country that allow companies to set such terms of agreement without violating your rights to express yourself, you should consider moving to another country.... It is very doubtful that M$ can actually defend this to court...
Pattern recognition is the first step of intelligence, btw. Parroting and emotional reactions do not even figure in except to show the animals lack of control and will power (again, back to intelligence)
the UCITA, which basically makes anything put in a EULA perfectly legal.
just use dreamweaver it is better anyway. i used it to make all my porn and anti microsoft sites.
you missed the point entirely that you can still choose (as in CHOICE) to use or not to use the products. Don't make this something it is not. Or would you rather stupidly be for legislation that disallows MS to do this? Gee, how hypocritical of you? Catch a clue please
Is it too late to have this submitted as evidence in the big court case?
Anyone who desires to make disparaging comments about Microsoft would presumably be motivated to do so because of their dislike for:
- b) Microsofts's business practices
If a) then why would they ever want to use FrontPage for such a purpose? There are many other HTML editors out there to choose from that would be perfectly acceptable for designing a Microsoft-bashing website.If b) then the issue would never come up because it would be against the principles of such a person to ever purchase a product from "those heartless monopolizing bastards."
--==--
Fanatic (n): a person who won't change his mind and can't change the subject.
Now I've seen everything.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
and when my high end 8 way compaq server goes belly up with the BSOD and a cryptic M$ error code that M$ support claims does not exist ?
I agree the right tool for the job, a M$ workstation on the (L)user's desk and a ROBUST UNIX server behind to ensure the business keeps on running. Let the (L)user's re-boot as needed but I expect my server to approach 99.99% uptime.
Not had anything with a M$ OS come more than reasonably close to that, though WIN2K is a MUCH improved animal.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
My version of FrontPage locks up every time I write something negative about Microsoft. That's pretty sweet coding :)
---- Please be nice in case my Slashdot karma ~= my real life karma.
It doesn't make sense to joke about something that doesn't exist, and no-one is suggesting should exist... It's the joke that was impaired.
Basically, they keep track of SMB sessions, IIS, and the various RAS-based bits built into the OS. (I don't know whether IIS covers only that server or all inbound HTTP/FTP/NNTP/telnet/what-have-you; the former would seem trivial to bypass, and the latter non-trivial to implement.)
*) CompUSA will not let me see the EULA before I buy it, because it is in the shrinkwrapped box.
*) CompUSA will not allow refunds on software.
So if you're in a situation where you buy the software, crack it open and don't agree with the license,.. tough shit. You are out of luck. Good luck trying to get your money back on opened software.
--Aaron
Just to be fair, could these 'oppresive' restrictions in the EULA be there to 'protect' M$ from getting sued should someone abuse there software? Just a thought and a sad one if that were the case.
Notice I used M$ instead of their real name as don't currently have a valid M....S... trademark license that allows me to utter there name...I don't want to get sued either.
Why not just erase the stupid "generated-by" meta tags? Then their is NO way to prove you used FrontPage Crapthousand.
"So you call this your free contry, tell me why it costs so much to live?" - Three Doors Down
You are aware of what happened when people tried to return copies of Windows after rejecting the EULA, aren't you? (Hint: it didn't work)
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I'm further appalled at all of the split infinitives!
suppose i am rolling out frontpage for my company. the hypothetical company makes web sites of sorts for clients. i've installed frontpage on several computers which our employees use. none of them have agreed to the EULA. they are merely users of the product. does the EULA apply to any user of the installed product, or just the person who installed/purchased it?
i don't see how i could be responsible, as an IT guy, for the actions of the staff in the company when they use the product, but have not themselves agreed to the license.
can microsoft really be demanding that their license apply to anyone that uses their product? what about children that are not old enough to be bound by these contracts?
comments?
check out my comic: Essential Tremors
couldn't you use this to shut down a site using frontpage if they're violating the agreement?
You cannot restrict "free speech." Free speech by its nature is unrestricted. You can restrict speech, at which point it is no longer "free," but to "restrict free speech" is an oxymoron. So, the title to this discussion probably ought to have been different.
Where's the verb in this sentence?
More importantly, what the heck do they think is wrong with the sentence in the EULA? It's perfectly correct. The grammar is fine - the *style* may be questionable, since the sentence is cumbersome and long, but we are talking about a legal agreement here, so that's normal enough.
- copy editor, Lythe
Slash has nothing to do with Slashdot.
yeah i'm a furry tr00l t0011111
Of course it isn't. You can see people having sex with sheep, horses, and snakes, too.
I think that I should create a site that disses pornography and gives a large gallery of examples of what graphics should not contain.:)
Leons Petrazickis (St. Leo)
If you don't agree to the terms of the license, don't friggin' buy it for chrissakes!
There are terms in the GPL that allow you to not accept the license, but continue to use the software under normal copyright (which is more restrictive, but still allows you to use it).
Because of the fact the GPL can be not accepted, yet you may still use the software, the license would be perfectly acceptable to put inside a box. The user has no right to expect anything but a copyrighted work in the box, and should they refuse to accept the GPL, that's what they get.
What really gets my goat are the ATI driver CDs that say "you must agree to the license before opening this package" when the license is inside, and underneath the CD so you can't even read it through the plastic window! Now that can't be legal...
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
I'd like to see Microsoft try ANYONE in court for this. Any judge with a sane mind would throw this out and label it as anti-competitive. Who would use their shitty software anyway?
...outnumber you, and we can kick your ass.
There's no longer any point to playing by the rules when the rules are being written by your opponent as you go along. So fuck the rules.
Pirate that software. Crack it. Distribute it. Start a bootleg CD business. Thumb your nose at Corporate America. When their lawyers come to your door, punch them in the mouth.
Sneak into an office and throw an executive out of the 30th floor window. Set the building on fire. Get a gun while you still can. You're going to need it when the thought police come to lock you away. Just pretend it's the Dark Ages again and it's every man for themselves, because it is, IT IS...
Do I sound like a lunatic? Hell yes. But what will I sound like in fifty years?
The revolution is coming. I can say this with a certainty, because I understand just enough about human nature to say that by the time people are so oppressed that they're willing to do something effective for change, violence and anarchy will be the only means that remain to them.
That is EXACTLY why the EULA is null and void in Germany. When you bought the software, that is where you "bought" the license to use it. If any restrictions apply apart from normal copyright laws, then you would have had to sign them before the handing over of the product and payment. But since you have the box in your hands and the contract has already been done, the EULA (or anything else you have to agree to when loading the software) simply is Null and void.
Not much on this page about linux, but at least it is stable with no error messages.
Furthermore, you can't have an XP machine running in a forest, as whether or not it makes a sound is indeterminable.
Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
.... I have to use Mozilla and post to an Apache webserver running perl based application ....
....
Like this: thwaaaaacccckkk:
So to say MS products are crap and that MS is evil I have to use Mozilla and post to an Apache webserver running perl based application
Like this:
(... recurse infinitely)
This EULA isn't respectable. So, it won't be respected.
..."
Heck, it ain't big deal. Front Page is a layout tool and code generator. The best thing I can say is that it helps you to get the ball rolling in some cases. However, the HTML it produces is chock full of goofy tags. I can't stand to use it. It's ponderous and cumbersome when you try to do simple edits. It's like smashing flies with a sledgehammer. Home site is a better product, if you must use such a thing. This isn't politically correct to say and I'll bet I get flamed but mostIy, these sorts of tools seem to appeal to women more than men. I think these things are OK for creating a template but then just use a decent editor to get it like you want it. You can strip out all that Microsoft header stuff anyway.
"All in all, it just another brick in the wall
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
You'd use Microsoft software to make anti-Microsoft webpages? Am I missing something here? :)
Men believe what they want. - Caesar
At least in the future of the MSWWW we wont need to worry about such silly little things, why at the mere thought of disgust with our dark overlord gates or the Unites States of Microsoft out SSSCA integrated minds with our backdoor encryption passwords and "Blue Desktop Wallpaper" will send a shutdown code directly to our cerebrum to stop any synapsys before our corruption SPREADS to any of the other users of their creation... hold on, my xp machine just deactivated for some reason.
My sausage tree didn't grow, does that make me a bad mommy?
The place to try them is in the court of public opinion.
How to do that? Well, don't try to do it alone. First you've got to alert the media, since it affects their integrity directly. No news organization can claim to be objective and use Microsoft Frontpage on it's website. Find out which ones use it. (Google?) Look especially hard at the big ones: Time-Warner, Newscorp, etc. Point the problem out to them. Suggest they cover it as a story. I suggest the notification use the most official-looking letterhead as is possible. Perhaps some of those German law firms can be persuaded to invoke actions on behalf of Microsoft on sorry publishers who use Frontpage and who post unflattering news, as they reportedly did for Adobe.
I'm guessing the person you are replying to meant "And where is signal11 in the EULA?". After all, if you are going to go to all that trouble to stop people bashing MS, you may as well shut siggy up while you're at it.
--
enterfornone - logging in for a change
In fact, the sentence is perfectly good English, but it doesn't mean what it's probably intended to mean. Parse the sentence and what do you get?
* You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services
* You may not infringe any intellectual property or other rights of these parties, violate any state, federal or international law, or promote racism, hatred or pornography.
Because of the singular forms in the second clause, its verbs logically belong to "you may not". They do NOT logically belong to "...use the Software in connection with any site that".
So what the terms say is that by accepting the EULA, you have to give up promoting porn ALTOGETHER - whether it's done with their crappy software or not!
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
The buildings and people were bad enough, but abusing a Microsoft EULA? Bomb the bastards!
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
The implication is that any other sites on the same machine at your ISP, sites that you link to, or link to you, etc, can all disqualify you from using it.
`Disparage' is also a pretty general term. Saying that The GIMP is better than MS-Paint could be viewed as disparaging, even if you do it using benchmark results and no analysis.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
No streaming cameras? No X-10? No RTTY?
No web, FTP or gopher servers, apparently including IIS (hooray!), no VNC, probably no SSH or telnet daemons, inasmuch as M$ are certain to define their miserable CLI as a part of XP's user interface.
Now for the scarey bit:
...even if they deliberately or accidentally fail, for example, by refusing to run certain important Open Source products. Remember ``DOS ain't done 'till Lotus won't run?'' Add this clause...
OK, here's the big one: we can change any of your software (the ``Product'' and/or components such as applications built to run on it and containing parts of it (runtime library interface module etc) without notice, and you agree to this. This includes new ``measures'' to prevent ``unlicenced or illegal use'' - and it's no great stretch of the imagination to visualise this including software made illegal by the SSSCA such as Apache, PHP or Screem (does FrontPage things only better, faster, cheaper and safer).
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Frontpage generates IE-centric spaghetti anyways...
So Use Dreamweaver!
Beware: I believe all are created equal, and have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Has anyone at Microsoft checked out any porn pages? Near as I can tell, the propreitors of porn pages are the biggest users of FrontPage!
Of course, I only go to those pages for the articles.
SFNative
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nothing exceeds like excess
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alright, folks. Where is it? I'm looking for a single Web page, designed with FrontPage 2002, that describes this EULA and says it's stupid. A wonderfully self-referential violation.
Any takers?
"You may not use the Software in
;)
;)
connection with any site that disparages Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products
or services, infringe any intellectual property or other rights of these parties, violate
any state, federal or international law, or promote racism, hatred or pornography."
The clauses starting with "infringe" cannot be semantically connected to "use the software" - in other words, this licence enjoins you to refrain from infringing M$ IP, violate any law (wasn't that already, uh, illegal?), or promote racism, hatred, or porn - whether you're using this software or just living your life. Obviously this is absurd, but that's the clear phrasing. Clear to anyone with a half decent understanding of the English language, anyway (ie. not a contract lawyer).
It's also not clear whether the "parties" whose IP rights you may not infringe (at any time) are the M$ bunch, or the sites that disparage them. That grammatical objection wouldn't hold up in court though.
The last piece of crappy M$ software I use is Mac IE. One of these days iCab will come of age and I'll be rid of it. But I'll assume I have the right to "disparage" them by misspelling their initials in this post, because I'm using lynx at the moment.
It is not a problem in English, on Latin(and possibly American). I like split infinitives.
There is a "ly" after that "on" - honest.
"Every EULA is doing you damage."
what about microsoft msn communities?
S =CHECKED&QRYAPND=msnlang1+msncommenus&FORM=COENUS& dom=communities.msn.com&cfg=COENUS&ba=0&v=1&UDo=0
There are no porn pages... are there?
http://search.msn.com/vresults.asp?q=porn&CO=50&R
all work and no play makes bill a dull boy.
An old Microsoft C++ EULA that I'd read said something to the effect of: "You may not use this compiler to create works that compete with any Microsoft products."
If someone could dig this up, please post it.
Trolled out? They callin' me trolled out? I tell you pesky kids, I ain't getting older, I'm getting better.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Why not make a scan of the EULA, and post it on the web?