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."

Comments

Microsoft's new dictionary EULA

[Jonathunder]

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.

Great marketing move!

[cyberdonny]

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...

Hee - pretty soon...

[MikeV]

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...

It's not just Microsoft

[gentlewizard]

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.

...Fool me twice, shame on me...

[frankie]

Every time one of these stories comes out, an apologist says "I'm sure it was just an accident, their lawyers/marketers/whoever made a dumb mistake".

• 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.

what next?

[streetlawyer]

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 ....

Re:what next?

[mcc]

To add slightly to what the others replying to your post have already said by reiterating what has been posted on slashdot many, many times before:

Unless "all the software you write with it" means "all the software that you create that incorporates source code taken from the source code of Linux" (and i would assume it is not, for i would expect that the prestigious StreetLawyer would not be one to make a grammar ambiguity mistake):

1. Such a license as you describe would not be compatible with the GPL, as the GPL demands that no use restrictions may be added to GPLed software. (See GPL section 6). So unless one individual entity has the copyright at this point to relicense the entire Linux kernel (unlikely-- *does* anyone? do you have to sign over your copyright to someone specific when you submit a kernel patch?), such a restriction (stating that if you write software using Linux you must open-source it) could not be added unless it were added to the GPL itself.
2. Please note that linux and other such GPLed products are always released under a certain version of the GPL, with the addition of the phrase "or at your option a later version of the GPL". Hence, even if new restrictions are added to the GPL, this does not affect GPLed code already out there.

   In either of the cases described above, you are still free to simply use the older, less restrictively licensed versions of Linux already out there, as the GPL does not allow anyone to retract a license they have given someone under the terms of the GPL.

encarta:

[kilgore_47]

As sugested, I checked Microsoft's definition of Microsoft.

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, /shared/spot/xmlsearchcore.inc, line 572 "
I think that really sums it up!