Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Puts SourceForge Clone Into Beta
M$ Mole writes "Microsoft is working hard to build their .NET community and has released the beta of an online software project management site. The service being provided is very similar to SF.net, but problems are arising around Microsoft's license, which (originally) granted all rights to the software place on the server to Microsoft. MS has back-pedaled a bit since their 'beta' license and is working on a new, more "acceptable" license."
What about Microsoft's MSN messanger crap, and hotmail? Didn't they make the EULA state they own everything that transpires on either network, then remove the clause from the EULA, only to reword it a week later and append it again? Doesn't MS learn from their mistakes? Besides, .net needs to run on XP, so the EULA on XP clearly states they own anything we do on it anyways, so doesn't matter where the EULA applies, be it before or after I submit my code... it's all owned by Microsoft at one point or other...
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
I wish the release of VS studio .NET would have gotten more press. Especially the part of the EULA for that which says you are not allowed to write GPLed code with it.
War is necrophilia.
By running 'strings' on ftp.exe ofcourse.
----------------------
Server Error in '/' Application.
Runtime Error
Description: An application error occurred on the server. The current custom error settings for this application prevent the details of the application error from being viewed remotely (for security reasons). It could, however, be viewed by browsers running on the local server machine.
Details: To enable the details of this specific error message to be viewable on remote machines, please create a tag within a "web.config" configuration file located in the root directory of the current web application. This tag should then have its "mode" attribute set to "Off".
Notes: The current error page you are seeing can be replaced by a custom error page by modifying the "defaultRedirect" attribute of the application's configuration tag to point to a custom error page URL.
----------------------
Am I the only one getting this error on gotdotnet.com? Past this, I was actually able to look at the message board where they posted the license update. To me, it sounded ridiculous.
First of all, the original terms were totally out of whack. Here's the quote:
By posting Your Stuff, You grant to Microsoft, under all of Your intellectual property and proprietary rights the following worldwide, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty free, fully paid up rights: (1) to make, use, copy, modify and create derivative works of Your Stuff; (2) to publicly perform or display, import, broadcast, transmit, distribute, license, offer to sell, and sell, rent, lease, and lend copies of Your Stuff (and derivative works thereof); (3) to sublicense to third parties, including the right to sublicense to further third parties; and (ii) You agree You won't commence any legal action against Microsoft or any Participant or Visitor for exercising any of these rights.
In short, all your base are belong to us!!! Huh? If I do post my project on gotdotnet, I will have to give up all IP rights to anything I create under that project to MS. I have to give them the right to unconditionally modify, redistribute, relicense for a fee, etc. and I won't have any rights to what I create. I have to imagine that someone actually sat down and thought that this was a fair deal! No shit they got a huge backlash from developers. Then there is the modified version of the license:
By posting Your Stuff to a Workspace, You understand and agree that you're giving a license under your intellectual property rights to all authorized users of the Workspace, including the rights to download, copy, modify, distribute and repost. In addition, you're giving Microsoft all the necessary rights to make Your Stuff available as part of the Project.
This has less legalese obviously, but all the details are now gone! There are no clear conditions that I am agreeing to; too generalized which makes me think that it eventually gives more power to MS to work out the details. These include and are not limited to:
- can I use my own license terms for use, distribution, modification, copyright notice?
- am I effectively giving up copyright when I agree to give everyone rights to download, copy, modify, redistribute and repost?
- can any user sublicense my work on their terms with their license for either commercial or non-commercial uses?
- what if there are patents involved? Am I giving up rights to my patents too?
- etc., etc., etc.
My understanding is that as one of the comments said in the reply to the above copyright change notice,
Why don't you just specify that you accept that the other authorized members of the workspaces will be able to work on the stuff in the workspace under the Licence the project owner defines... There is no need to give anybody a special licence... The wks owner tells that his project is under bsd licence for example, then, the only special right I will grant to MS is that I accept that MS will provide my files to others under the licence I defined. what is complicated here ? Why should they require something different ? If MS wants to use the file sin the project thay should also be bound to the defined licence, not the other way...
I think I have an answer why this is not going to happen; because MS is afraid developers will start using GPL for their works. With recent MS stances toward GPL apps, such as licenses that prohibit running or interfacing with GPL apps, I don't think they will allow developers to choose their own license. Rather, MS does want to force their terms on the developers. I am wondering how all this will play out.