Slashdot Mirror
Two Helpings of WINE
Mister Snee writes: "As of the latest WINE release, the developer who's been working on the ActiveMovie and DirectShow code for the last nine months suddenly pulled it all from the source tree, citing fears of trouble under the DMCA." And an anonymous reader submits: "TransGaming Tecnologies is offering much of its own proprietary code up for exchange if Codeweavers are willing to relicense some of their code under the less restrictive (more free) X11 licence (eg contributing it to the X11 fork of wine, Rewind). Details can be found at this post by CEO Gavriel State. This all came from the Codeweavers-dominated recent licence change (to the LGPL) which was done in an attempt to steal TransGaming's Direct3D code and force them to open up all their work (thus have no means to make money)." Your attitude toward these license machinations may vary; Codeweavers seems unlikely to oppose people making money from WINE development.
Someone should start naming their wine distributions - Burgundy, Pino Grigio, etc. So i can tell who the hell is contributing to what!
There are 01 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary, and me.
"which was done in an attempt to steal TransGaming's Direct3D code and force them to open up all their work (thus have no means to make money)."
The licensing change was made because the Wine-project didn't really want "leeches". That is, companies using their work, without contributing back. This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with stealing.
If this hurts TransGaming, then that is their problem, not the Wine-projects.
PS! I actually like WineX, and I am a subscriber, but they have no universial right to use all the work of the Wine-project unless the contributors think that is ok (stated with a license). If they succeed in "swapping code" that is ok. Bitching about not being able to use LGPL-code, is not.
They're wrapping an API around some existing binary code for the MPlayer stuff, aren't they? Hence the reason it only works on the processor architecture that Windows Media Player works on. This is hardly a copyright issue, or an encryption issue is it? If the writers of the code they're wrapping hteir API around are bothered about it, it's just like, say, Microsoft being bothered about you using alternative software to read a word document, or something equally silly. Hmmm... come to think of it, they probably would be bothred by that!
Follow me
I have to add a copy to my "suppressed" directory tree. This is just what the WINE project needs. A fork to a non-U.S. (and probably non-E.U., eventually) nation brought on by the mere implied threat of legal action from evil "intellectual" "property" barons.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
Someone at Redmond has a satisfactory smile on his face ...
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
How can someone pull the code like this? There must be a copy, heck it might even remain in the cvs database, put it back in there, and if the project leads don't want it in then fork the project. This is exactly why we like the license the way it is, so this sort of thing can't be done unilaterally to a project you rely on.
This all came from the Codeweavers-dominated recent licence change (to the LGPL) which was done in an attempt to steal TransGaming's Direct3D code and force them to open up all their work (thus have no means to make money).
Now, I'm not license ninja like some of the people on here, but I thought the whole _point_ of the LGPL was that it could be linked to or used without the linking source having to be opened. I was under the impression that was the main difference between the LGPL (Lesser?) and the regular one.
Anyone care to correct me, please?
--saint
"This all came from the Codeweavers-dominated recent licence change (to the LGPL) which was done in an attempt to steal TransGaming's Direct3D code and force them to open up all their work (thus have no means to make money)."
Wait a second...so if you open up your entire source, you can no longer make money ?
i'm going to send the folks at codeweavers a letter requesting my money back for the crossover plugin.
-- john
It seems to me that all we'll ever be able to run on Wine is old Windows applications. Any cutting edge applications will not run unless the said app. maintains strict adherence to a old proprietary standard. This means that Wine will always be one step back.
Virtual Machines such as Bochs and VM-Ware will eventually be the only choice for running x86 applications.
Incedently VMWare and Bochs are not new concepts. SCO have had something called Merge for ages, which has allowed people to run Windows on Openserver for years now and more recently allowed Unixware users to do the same.
Wine's forking is a desperately sad attempt to remain as near to the cutting edge in legally grey DMCA infested waters. Virtual Machines and emulators are the way to go, DMCA be dammned.
e4 e5
This all came from the Codeweavers-dominated recent licence change (to the LGPL) which was done in an attempt to steal TransGaming's Direct3D code and force them to open up all their work (thus have no means to make money).
<Dripping Sarcasm>
Oh, very well put.
</Dripping Sarcasm>
I don't even know what's going on and I can tell that this is absolutely nothing but a ham-handed attempt to push forward a view of the GPL and LGPL (and/or of Codeweavers) and blame it for things for which it no more responsibility than it does for the crisis in the Middle Eeast.
Licence changes of open code only affect future versions. If an earlier version was out under a different licence you liked better-- fork from there! That's what gave us OpenSSH. It was forked from the last "open enough" version of ssh. Similarly with TuxRacer; it's gone commercial, but the earlier GPLed versions are still GPLed, and nothings to stop anybody from further development of them.
What's more, even if you change your future versions of code, you can't "steal" somebody else's code which uses an older version. The current ssh is under a more restrictive licence... but OpenSSH doesn't have anything to worry about using the older ssh code. Similarly for TuxRacer; if somebody else writes a GPLed extention to it, the proprietary version can't "steal" it simply because it's connected to an earlier version of code that the proprietary version grew out of. (And vice versa. Developers of the GPLed version aren't "stealing" the proprietary code, or preventing it from being sold, by building on the earlier version.)
This statement is little better than Microsoft FUD, and comes across as far less slick than it. If there really is some beef or ethical problem with what Codeweavers has done, I don't know. If there is, it needs to be stated much better than this. This statement here only makes me believe that the poster is a whiner with strong opinions about the GPL that aren't actually based in fact.
-Rob
It seems strange that someone would just pull something out of fear of the DMCA. Worse case scenario is they say remove it after its realease, and you do. Luckily for US the geenie is out of the bottle by that time, but they conform so its all okay, right?
I mean - I hate the DMCA as much as the next guy (cause Jack Valenti isnt a guy so it cant be as much as him) but I have to be the skeptic and think maybe there was a different reason he pulled his code.
Ive been wrong before...
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
The fear of the DCMA is more powerful than the law itself and the people who enforce it.
If this Hidenori Takeshima is resident in Japan (I dont know where he lives) then the DCMA has no effect on him. Period.
The DCMA is relevant to and has force only for United States Persons. If someone in the USA downloads your source from outside of the USA, and that source violates the DCMA, the downloader is liable, not the author if the source in question is subsequently implimented in a project.
Everyone really should understand this by now. The same principle applied to the export of the printed source code of PGP. Once code leaves US borders, it is no longer the business of US courts. Thats why PGPi exists.
If the DCMA continues to break software like this, the only alternative people will have is to move software development into the free world.
Yes, the Free world.
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
Whenever windows code is the subject, the conversation revolves around whining about money and who stole what code for what reason. Use only quality GNU software to avoid these issues. I say, let's quit talking about windows and get back to coding and using linux. That way we can be assured of healthy happy minds.
/dTd
Codeweavers seems unlikely to oppose people making money from WINE development.
god forbid someone makes some money.
... it looks like the developers of all the Wine and Wine copies are duking it out with licenses rather than M$ style:
/.'s front page makes it sound.
'I'll take your invention, E&E it, then I'll beat you over the head with it'
'You do that and I'll sue!'
'Then I'll settle, but I'll keep beating you over the head with it.'
It's really not like this in the Wine world, but that's how
You are all fartheads.
This really shows Transgaming's position in the free software / open source worlds. I am a subscriber to Transgaming and have since because of their attitude canceled my subscription. I subscribed because they had an interesting business model and I supported it. When the subscriber base of transgaming reached a certain point (apparently non declared [it used to be on their site some where but I bet they renigged]) then they will release it under a less restrictive license "such as the wine license." I finally read that part over again and noticed that it doesn't actually say anything about what license it will be under, and exactly how less restrictive it will be. The fact that they are negotiating to allow simple trivial things back in to the code base that they have been leeching from for years (such as middle mouse support in DirectX) shows they had no intention of remerging the codebase under the wine license. I can almost guarantee that they will never release their modifications under the wine license now, but rather under some non GPL compatible license.
This is what you get when you trust and give your money to a company founded by ex employees of Corel.
Gnuyen
Gnuyen
It seems to me that several of the most successful open source projects have used multiple licensing. Why not use a dual license? The non-LGPL license would need to be somewhat more restrictive than the X11 license (since there were specific reasons why they wanted to have some copylefting), and I don't know what would fit the bill, but it seems that such a combination would fit the Wine project's needs quite well.
Yes, but as seen in the case of a certain DeCSS author, the USA seems to think that American law does apply to the entire world.
The fear is unfortunate, but understandable in my mind.
This adolescent squabbling over licenses is pathetic. It is really sad to see people trying to use the [L]GPL as a weapon. I think I'll just use Rewind
Codeweavers (with *tada* Wine) does it
Cool. Where can I download the source to the Wine / Netscape Plugin API link? Oh wait, I can't. Codeweavers make great products, fund Open Source, and give much of their work back to Wine. But not all of it, and they certainly don't do it from selling Open Source software. Ximian, I doubt, is even profitable.
And while we're at it, maybe some could request that Transgaming publish their source under a licence like X11, rather then using the restrictive Aladdin licence
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Transgaming, Codeweavers, Wine or ReWind?
Reading their comments in Wine Magazine 122 or was it 121, I felt like the guilty one is Transgaming. But if you'd examine carefully work Transgaming is dealing with, license forces them to work that way. Some parts they made for WineX like Copy Protection just can't work under base Wine license (same reason as CSS for DVD, which is stupid if you ask me), so all they are asking is making patches available in secondary license which would allow them to push them out closed as demanded by patent.
On the other hand Codeweavers is selling Crossover plugin for a long time and look Quicktime under official Wine license still doesn't work??? I understand they'd sell plugins for browsers, but selling parts of Wine that allow QT to work? That's what exactly what Transgaming was acussed for, just some other parts of system (which are legally closed by patent).
So who is the guilty one?
1. Transgaming for not risking their bussines as demanded from Wine side?
2. Codeweavers for not publishing code for Quicktime to work? Even though Quicktime is not closed by any patent?
3. Wine for being so obviously on Codeweavers side?
4. ReWind for making compromise between all of them but obviously left on the side as a side player nobody really cares about.
I vote for Codeweavers.
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
If the WINE team wants to avoid leeches, they need some more license consultation.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
i think the dll separation code is really important: after the completion of it, rewind, wine and the proprietary forks can be sort of binary compatible, meaning that crucial development in a gpl'd dll is not lethal anymore for a proprietary fork, and only work to gpl'd dlls has to be opensourced.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I work for a university newspaper , and we had some old machines (P-90, 16M RAM) that just wouldn't run Win98 usably. So I decided to make them into X-terminals, since the fileserver (running Samba and netatalk) wasn't really being pushed.
Everything was set up, worked fine. But I only got a few people to use it. I made a big poster with a screenshot of the desktop and hung it right above the machines, but still, little use compared to the Windows machines next to them. People would actually _wait_ to use the Windows machines.
That's when I switched from KDE to icewm. I made icewm have the most Windows-like look possible, giving it a "Start" menu instead of "K." I also put 4 shortcuts on the taskbar next to the Start menu (like Win98) for StarOffice, Netscape, GAIM, and a script that connects them to their PINE email. Then I created a _background_ with arrows pointing to things and descriptions (before, people would just not look up and see the poster). Now I see them being used all the time.
Another thing about a place like this is that the (student) staff changes fairly regularly, and so the new people are more likely to use the Linux machines (though still only if the Windows ones are all taken).
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
It seems to me that all we'll ever be able to run on Wine is old Windows applications. Any cutting edge applications will not run unless the said app. maintains strict adherence to a old proprietary standard. This means that Wine will always be one step back.
And don't forget that so far, we can't even run old Windows applications using Wine. We're how many years on and I still can't run MS Office 95 or 97 with the latest Wine release, much less Internet Explorer or Photoshop. The recent popularity of the "screw native Linux software, all we need is Wine" mentality is very troubling.
Incedently VMWare and Bochs are not new concepts. SCO have had something called Merge [caldera.com] for ages, which has allowed people to run Windows on Openserver for years now and more recently allowed Unixware users to do the same.
By the way, you can also get Merge for Linux. It's used as the guts of the very popular (and cheaper and faster than VMWare) Win4Lin.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
WineX DOES contribute back. They contribute back after YOU contribute to them by subscribing.
Do you honestly think development is free? Unlike Codeweavers, Transgaming doesnt have unlimited cash to fund development.
Transgaming develops shouldnt be forced to release all their code until theres enough subscribers to pay for development of new code. IF you want to force them to release all their code, what you are doing is putting them out of business.
CodeWeavers is doing this to kill the competition. They also are trying to get rid of Lindows. This is obvious from anyone on the outside.
Swapping code is what should be done, I dont think transgaming has complained about not being able to use LGPL code, they complain that CodeWeavers switched the license in an attempt to put them out of business.
THAT is believeable.
CodeWeavers is on the side of CodeWeavers, Lindows and Transgaming care more about Wine.
If CodeWeavers cared about Wine they would do whats best for the Wine users, and thats to have as much code completed as possible under ANY license. I support the GPL, but I want games to work in Wine, and I am subscribed to transgaming, why ruin Transgaming?! They have done ALOT!!!
Codeweavers has done alot, but why should I be forced to pick sides? They should be working together.
Lindows is new in this, but give them a chance.
The License Change was a strategic attack.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Lets look at what they were doing. Ill show you examples!
Codeweavers is not a team player. They were the ones who pulled out of their partnership with Lindows.
When Transgaming started making WineX, CodeWeavers got on them to release the code, they also got on Lindows to release the code. However both of these commpanies do not have a business plan where the code can be released immediately, during this time Wine was under a license which allowed this.
CodeWeavers got mad that they couldnt use the WineX and Lindows code to sell their products, but WineX and Lindows could use theirs.
Their solution, was to get the license changed. Instead of working WITH transgaming and lindows, from the start codeweavers has seen these two companies as enemies.
If Wine is what you care about, why does it matter if other companies use your wine code? its better for Wine, its just not good for your business.
So you see, this was a strategic business attack from code weavers, forking Wine allows them to now get all the code produced by Transgaming and Lindows to add to their products.
BUT YOU DONT see Transgaming or Lindows whining and complaining about this because these companies unless CodeWeavers have an actual business plan!
Look, if we are to be successful as open source, our businesses should work together. Lindows and Transgaming are doing this, try both TRIED to work with Codeweavers who refused and caused both companies to have to spend more on development attacking both of their businesses.
I predict code weavers will be the first to go out of business because they dont work with the team.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
How can you argue that TransGaming's proprietary fork is okay, but proceeding with the LGPL is not? You can't have it both ways. WINE is not some corporate charity, so the developers chose a license they're more comfortable with.
TransGaming leveraged a million lines of code, the result of almost ten years of development, in the development of its proprietary WineX product. Now TransGaming wants to trade some of its code for LGPLed code. I can forgive some WINE developers for feeling like TransGaming hasn't made good on its previous trade. Alexandre summarized the WINE sentiment as follows:
That said, if swapping code improves WINE, I'm all for it. In fact, it validates the decision to go LGPL.Open source will never be anything important as long as you keep bickering over licenses.
Note: WineX uses AFPL. Wine uses LGPL, and the old Wine (ReWind) uses X11/MIT
The real reason that the license change was made was that Transgaming has made some really nice improvements and promised more work to be done. They also promised to release most it back to the main WINE tree. So far, only very select portions have been. TG argues that if they released more, there will be no incentives for additional subscribers. Thus, TG has a promise but NO RELEASE DATE for a free versions of their code.
What this does is preempt most of the development in these areas in the main WINE tree. For example if TG is working on improved DirectSound support, and has *promised* to release the code *later*, will you be motivated to work on improved DirectSound support in the main WINE tree? I wouldn't, and that's the problem.
TG has made promises without any dates. They just say that, "Oh we'll release it back when we recover our costs", but it's hurting WINE development by doing that. It's not only encouraging redundant work, it's also hurting the incentive to make a free version (by their empty promises). By changing to LGPL, they are hoping that WINE developers have an incentive to make something that is not preempted by TG (TG has stated it will not release stuff as LGPL).
I used to have WineX subscription, but I cancelled it. I also brought Crossover plugin from CW. Pressing a button on my KVM switch to my windows box is not a big deal. The only reason I subscribed was because I thought that I was contributing to WINE development, and playing games on my Linux box was the added bonus.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
I can't believe this story was posted as-is. What obvious flamebait!
Newsflash- the LPGL is not some awful burdensom thing designed to make your life hell. It's a perfectly reasonable license that strikes a good balance between the full blown GPL and a BSD-type license. Anyone who has serious complaints about it is just selfish.
This kind of pointless sniping is not a stellar example of how business and open source can work together. Hopefully Codeweavers and Transgaming (and the l33t followers on both sides) can come up with a more intelligent solution than schoolyard name-calling.
like some cheese with that WHINE?
(note to morons: i meant to spell it whine and not wine)
Where was Slashdot when the huge license debate was going on a few months ago? It was far more interesting and from what I remember it got one or two mentions. Also Bruce Perens said something about licensing and possibly "Wine Magazine" getting it wrong - I urge him to go back to issues 111, 115, and 116 of Wine Weekly News - I'm pretty sure I got it right. (If I didn't let me know and I'll include the necessary changes.)
I'd also like to point out that Hidenori Takeshima never cited the DMCA as the reason the code was pulled, although ostensibly it's the only legal reason. For all we know his employer could own some of the code.
Anyway, Gavriel State's proposal is pretty interesting because there hasn't been a major sync with the main (LGPL) Wine CVS in a while. Both sides have a lot to offer. The DLL separation is very important to Transgaming - without it their work will become horribly out of sync. Likewise, the DIB engine and DCOM code would be nice stuff to have in the main Wine tree. (Although, if you read closely it says "current work in WineX that supports DCOM" - according to Ove Kaaven he's work on some new and improved stuff that will make the "current work" obsolete. Perhaps his new stuff has already hit the WineX tree and I'm wrong, but my hunch says they haven't finished it yet.)
Has anyone ever heard of a BSD and LGPL project
trading patches back and forth? I'm sure example exist, perhaps some of the Linux and FreeBSD drivers have worked that way in the past.
----- obSig
This debate has been going on for a while. As other people have commented, the LGPL change was prompted mostly because some companies were promising to release code back, and never substantially doing so. The X11 license allows this, and indeed it is sometimes needed to have closed-source portions in a project the size of WINE. And Transgaming does indeed have to have SOMETHING to pitch it's product for.
;)
Now, the point is that this idea has worked. Gav has now proposed 'trading' some substantial parts of code for duel-licensing certain patches made recently. This shows that the change to the LGPL has helped with it's original aim - encouraging users of the main WINE tree to submit their works off the tree back.
However you look at it, there is no perfect license. The LGPL offers (imho) a good ballance between open source and allowing the closed-source parts that are indeed necessary for WINE to be able to implement certain patent-protected functionality. Basically, this is just FUD of the upmost. There has been no major split in the development community over this, and indeed a majority of WINE commiters have allowed their work to be duel-licensed and commited to both the main WineHQ tree and the x11-forked ReWind tree. Some do not wish that, but that's their own choice. If you spend time coding something, you can damn well do with it what you want
The same of course applies to TG - they spent time coding some very substantial features, and wish to hold their work back. I think decent code exchanges are fine, and this license change has indeed promoted them.
Isn't VM-ware an x86 application :)
Reminds me of the famous scientist who was informed that the world was a plate on a giant tortoise. What was the tortoise standing on? Another tortoise...
Free Java games for your phone: Tontie, Sokoban
Hidenori wasn't particularly worried about DMCA. From reading wine-devel, it was more fear about potential patent infringement and EULAs. The DMCA creates the same kind of worries X 10 but mainly for Americans (and those who travel to US).
I can't keep all the players straight.
Fact is there are two main drivers in which technologies are going to be succesful - what businesses want and what consumers want. What businesses want to do is the same old boring stuff but faster, and maybe with more bells and whistles. Consumers want games, aything else comes under business.
For business WINE is very important - no-one wants to do anything from scratch (or reinvent the wheel as they say). But no-one cares where the bells and whistles come from. When a new project starts in a company the technology is usually a year or two out of date, so it doesnt matter if wine is this far behind. Its the new stuff that will decide what platform the company will use going forward. Of course there needs to be cutting edge apps coming out for Linux, and someone selling the whole package for a high enough price.
And as for games - they tend to run so close to the hardware that the OS is just an inconvenience. And gamers are fickle, they are often happy to give up their old games if the next generation is good enough.
the developer who's been working on the ActiveMovie and DirectShow code for the last nine months suddenly pulled it all from the source tree, citing fears of trouble under the DMCA.
I'm sick of hearing about spineless programmers suddenly and without explanation pulling their code from cvs trees, whining about dmca. First off, pulling code without prior discussion is a rash and irresponsible move. Secondly, we need people to take a strong stance against DMCA if we ever want to destroy it. At least half my co-workers would be willing to protest in Wash. DC if an open source programmer was ever convicted of a non-crime using dmca. I frankly wouldn't be too surprised if a 'million geek march' formed too..
I tried office97 with a recent wine (april), and worked fine. You must be doing something wrong.
That, and if the code is GPL, other people already have the right to distribute it anyway. So it doesn't get the code out of circulation, but makes the coder look spineless. I suspect there's more here at stake than the abstract threat of a DMCA per/prosecution, though.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
Don't mind me, just burning off some karma. Nothing to see here.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
I was pretty sure that the int'l author of code was being held liable for anything the US downloader could do. At least that is what Elcomsoft/Dmitry led me to believe...
Even if it weren't under the GPL, as long as it wasn't released under a particularly restrictive license, everyone has a right to redistribute it.
If this is the case, then they will be able to extradite the authors from Russia to the USA to face charges.
This will never happen; no Russian Prosecutor will extradite a Russian citizen to the USA because of the DCMA. Read this:
"Russia has no formal court procedure for extraditions and it is the Prosecutor General who decides on extradition applications at his own discretion"
article from "The Russian Issues"
The code that Elcomsoft wrote was created inside Russia, does not violate any Russian laws, and so its authors are completely safe as long as they stay inside Russia.
Anyone outside of America who is scared of the DCMA isnst thinking straight. They certainly should not stop writing code that is legal in their jurisdiction because of this law.
Before anyone pulls valuable code in a senseless fit of panic, they should take a free consultation from a local lawyer.
When the best development is being done outside of the USA and they begin to see the damage that these insane laws are creating, they will be repealed, just like the restrictions on "exporting" crypto were repealed.
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
I know that a Russian who writes code that is legal in Russia, but illegal in the US because of that absurd law isn't going to be extradited. But, it does make it impossible for that Russian to ever come to the US for any reason afterwards. That could severly hurt someones career if he can't come to one of the largest industrial nations in the world..
First of all, who cares? America isnt the only place where great companies exist and where there are opportunities to change the world through writing software and contributing to GPL projects. Linux itself is not an American Invention®.
Secondly, the statute of limitations means that after seven years, if someone who violated the DCMA wants to sunbathe in Florida, they can do that.
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
Look, it's clear that some organizations take the Wine work, add stuff, and don't give back to the Wine community. The current license allows this, but it looks like many Wine developers don't like what's happening. Thus, the majority of the Wine developers have agreed to switch the license of future versions to the LGPL, which will thus _require_ other developers to work with them if their LGPL code is used. In other words, the license will now require what before was a request and a courtesy. This isn't "theft", this is simply "you can use my Wine code if I can use your Wine code". The LGPL is a common compromise library if a group wants to allow proprietary programs to use it, but wants to create a "consortium" for maintaining the library. The LGPL is used for lots of projects, including GTK+ (the basis of GNOME).
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
Isn't the point of free software that once the software is in a user's hands, it's none of the original developer's business what he or she does with it?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
99% of the world would not have switched from Office 97 unless MS beat them with a stick (like Access 2K's penchant for converting Access 97 databases to a new format without the user's permission; now fixed in Office XP).
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.