Slashdot Mirror
Colleges Signing Secret MS License Agreements
David Gerard writes "As seen on Yale LawMeme: Microsoft is requiring colleges wanting cheap licenses to keep their license terms secret (e.g. Ohio State, University of Michigan) ... in direct contravention of state public records and Freedom of Information laws." Many FOI laws have loopholes permitting state agencies not to disclose information when it would harm business interests, so what the colleges and Microsoft are doing may not actually be illegal (or could be argued not to be, anyway), but it certainly is shady.
I really don't care what kind of agreement my college (RIT) has with MS. I got a legal and free copy of Visual Studio.NET. And I don't care what you say about Microsoft's evil business practices. But I don't see any developement environments that are that amazing for linux. I mean KDevelop is good and all, but it doesn't even come close. I already pay my school thousands of dollars every year, and if some shady agreement with MS puts Win2k in the labs and Visual Studio on my PC I got no problem with it.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Ok, on this one I will bite.
College is for learning why not how, if you are going to school for how there are many fine vocational schools.
If you manage to graduate from College and are unable to apply your skills on a new software package used in real life your education is useless.
Isn't this why people Intern????
Many are saying "well good for them, it doesn't matter if it is secret" or "having a cheap license is the important part." However, the entire purpose of these Public-Disclosure laws is that citizens (who pay for these Universities with tax money) should have the right to know what is being done with their money. A private University can sign whatever contract they want with Microsoft, but a publicly-owner organization has an obligation to _us_ (the people paying the bill) to tell us what they are doing.
Having secret contracts with a monopoly to use taxpayer-paid dollars in unknown ways is a dangerous business. For all we know, these contracts could ablige these universities to use exchange-server or block access to filesharing networks in exchange for getting and selling their software at a low price. For that matter, it could be a high price, no-one knows!
The beauty of the public-disclosure laws comes where any citizen can complain about the use of their tax dollars.
Probably a troll, but on the off chance that anyone thinks he's making sense, I'll respond. If MS wants to give the school a good deal, fine. Why do they need to keep it a secret from the taxpayers that are paying the bills? How is it good for me as a taxpayer to not know what kind of terms the schools I'm helping to pay for are agreeing to? How will I know if they've agreed to some horrible terms? If MS wants to deal with publicly funded schools, then it needs to be above the board and not try to hide anything from the public.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I go to one of the universities listed above, so I'll post anonymously on this topic. People here ask "Why does it matter what is in these agreements?" I'll tell you why it matters. My speculation is that courses are being changed as a result of these agreements.
For example, my school has a "Microsoft.NET laboratory". This literally is an entire room of a building dedicated to working on Microsoft.NET products. A course I am taking next semester that historically has been done in Java all of the sudden is now including C#; without seeing the syllabus, I cannot say which one is being emphasized more.
Secret agreements may be nice, but it makes me wonder what is going on. I wish I had a good compromise answer here; it's nice to let students get $1,000+ worth of software for less than $200 (which we can then keep after we leave school), but if the curriculums are being compromised in response, academic integrity and independance are going down the drain.
Sorry to be blunt, but I believe your stance, though popular, is short-sighted.
Microsoft technology is the dominant tech today, who's to say what will be in highest demand tommorrow?
They're paying less to a known monopolist. What if they opened the information, allowing other companies to bid, and thus lower the price of software due to competition over the long term?
Microsoft is trying it's hardest to keep competition out of its markets, and I think decisions like that help them considerablely. Too bad so many IT directors can't think past the next budget cycle.
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
I go to CMU. MS Office XP costs $10. MS Windows XP costs $10. MS Visual Studio.NET costs $15. All these are without manuals, in tiny packages with a license for installing it one time (actually, the license is separate, and it claims it's illegal without a license, but the people at the computer store say it's a one time install).
Anyways, this cuts down on piracy on one hand. On the other hand, I'm seriously bothered by the fact that they are using MY highly priced college tuition to support a convicted felon.
What's really sad is that there is a Microsoft club at my university called MSImpact, supported by MS (and the girl who runs it is paid by MS to do this, she interned there one summer and has some sort of deal right now).
Here's who you make a FOIA request to and here's MSU's FOIA price list. Here's a summary of Michigan's Public Records Act. There's no exemption that would cover a signed contract. Somebody in Michigan should ask.
Um that's exactly the point. You don't *know* if you're getting a discount because nobody knows what anyone else is paying. There's no reference or baseline other then the (ridiculous) list price.
It reminds me of something a friend said to me. I was purchasing sun servers for the university I worked at, about 100k worth. The list price was 180k and I got them down to 95k... I was telling my friend that I had negotiated almost a 50% discount, and he said (sarcastically) "Gee, next time we should ask them to raise the list price even more so we get a better discount!"
Point being that ... if you have *no clue* what other universities are paying, how can you negotiate a good deal for yourself? I also suspect they want to hide draconian and quite possibly anti-competitive terms like "we'll give you 20% off if you teach your courses in visual studio"
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
>so what the colleges and Microsoft are doing may not actually be illegal (or could be argued not to be, anyway), but it certainly is shady.
What they might be doing is offering different universities packages at different prices.
When the terms of the contract MS was pushing on public schools was brought to everyones attention, there was a pretty big uproar. Remember - MS forced the schools to pay them for licenses for ALL PC's in the district whether they actually ran Windows or not. The effect of this practice is to hinder the ability to buy Mac's for - say the graphic arts department or even use donated PC's to run Linux or anything else. Makes you wonder just what kind of "deal" these schools are getting and if they are possibly anti-competitive.
I want to be alone with the sandwich
Excuse me? How can you be so blind?
The student council is paying them, and you actually believe that somehow that bill is not paid by yourself?
This deal actually makes everyone pay for the Windows licenses. It's just another way to pull money out of the Linux and Mac crowd by having them foot the bill for discounts that "benefit everyone". You know, crack dealers also give great discounts to poor college people to make them dependant on it.
Of course, if you think it through, you will notice that there is only one who benefits here -- Microsoft. Because people like yourself will now learn to use Windows and Windows based software. That in turn will lead businesses to use Windows, because that's all the new guys from college know. That in turn leeds to people believing that you have to use Windows because "that's what businesses use".
Oh, and I just love how you imply that everyone who has not bought a copy of Windows and Office is a pirate. I don't have a copy of Office. I wouldn't even own a Windows license if I could have bought my notebook without one.
They don't care about Joe Sixpack buying WinXP Home at ChumpUSA, they are after bigger fish. Like the country of India or China. Or every customer of Dell, Gateway, IBM, etc.
I think the budget items of a state university should be subject to some sort of FOIA inquiry, perhaps using state laws not federal. This is a really bad trend because when it becomes impossible to avoid paying Microsoft the "gratis" / free aspect of open source is nullified. If anyone in the states mentioned has the motivation they should pursue this with their state representative to bring these charges and their amounts to light.
An added bonus they have with their "free" Front Page copies (at one of the FAQs for the universities) is that they generate bad code for non-IIS servers * . Gee, I'll have to go download IIS for Linux once I'm done with this post.
http://www.oit.ohio-state.edu/site_license/mslic ense/answers.html*Is FrontPage recommended for use with my environment?
Before purchasing or developing your web pages with Microsoft FrontPage, ensure the web server for your pages will be the Microsoft Internet Information Server (IIS) running on Windows NT. FrontPage embeds proprietary and/or non-protocol-compliant features within HTML code, many of which are incompatible with many non-Microsoft web servers, including those utilized in OSU's OpenVMS and Novell architectures. The implications are twofold:
o Web page creators can't just place FrontPage-generated HTML files in their OpenVMS accounts or in their Universal Disk Space and expect the web pages to work correctly.
o Even if the pages are served successfully, they may only be fully readable by certain versions of Microsoft's Internet Explorer (IE) web browser.
- Nobody is in full compliance without an institutional license (like these) and probably nobody is in compliance even with such a license program.
- The cost of full (a la carte) compliance would be enormous. How do you track 20,000 licenses among many departments, research groups, students, etc.?
- Anyone who thinks about legal exposure is running scared.
License administration is exceedingly unproductive work that everyone hates. So we had a pretty strong reason to pay MS's "protection money" and sign up for the blanket license. Even under the program, there are a lot of onerous provisions, as the FAQs cited at Ohio & Michigan show.A courageous administrator (more courageous than I) would add up all the costs and risks and conclude that the rational thing is to go Open Source. Microsoft's strategy seems to be to extract all the cash from universities that the market will bear, without starting a rebellion.
All this has nothing to do with FOIA and everything to do with monopolists, institutional inertia and risk avoidance.
Fiat Lux.
It's bad because MS is using it's unfettered Monopoly power to force (yes, force) publicly funded institutions to hide important contract points, despite legal prohibitions on doing this. MS says sign this agreement and break the law or you and your poor students will not only be buying all this software at retail +, and We and the BSA will also be by to do a full and comprehensive audit of every computer in this institution. And then we'll do another one. We'll let you know when. Or not.
And if RIT didn't have the shady deal with MS, maybe you'd only be paying hundreds every year, and you'd learn all about other amazing development environments that MS has now contractually forbidden you to see (on school time at least).
Oracle uses the same dir^h^h^h tactic with universities as well (and not just with states named California). At the University of Arizona, we purchased a site license for their product line at an enourmous price - during the process, they would not divulge (nor were we able to find out) their deals with other universities. However, I found out from my Dad, who is a dean at a university in the northwest, that Oracle tried to sell them the very same deal, but they turned it down.
"What we have here, is a failure to communicate." - Cool Hand Luke
Since I'm employeed by an institution that has one of these contracts, I'm going to post as an AC. When we signed our Microsoft Campus Agreement, there were (substantiated) rumors that the contract required a certain percentage of our University-owned computing infrastructure to use Microsoft OSs. That doesn't seem too bad, until you realize that they were counting intelligent switches, Cisco firewalls, etc, it as non-MS products for that calculation. Of course, once the IT populace started getting hot about this requirement, the web-site was pulled are replaced with an MS-sanctioned page like those listed in the blurb.
commenting on the Microsoft monopoly.
Microsoft doesn't give good deals to colleges so they can raise the price on them two years later.
Microsoft gives good deals to colleges (as do Sun Microsystems, Apple, Hewlett-Packard, and IBM...) because they want their stuff in front of the people who will be making the decisions in ten years. Microsoft doesn't give software to colleges (or discount the heck out of it) because they want to leverage a monopoly-- they do it because they fear not being a monopoly in 10 years.
Microsoft often goes one step further: They'll foot the bill for some percentage of PC hardware if the college in question will promise to run Microsoft OSes on it.
-JDF
Don't like what your country is doing? Go to another country. Don't like what your ISP is doing? Switch to a different ISP. Don't like your college's software licensing agreements? Go to a different college.
This is about the most useless advice you could possibly give. First, there are few people who are likely to take it, because the proposed solution requires so much effort. Second, if you don't tell the college precisely why you decided to make the move, you haven't contributed at all to the solution. The administration will most likely decide that the best way to increase sagging attendance is to redesign the college logo. Finally, by leaving the college, you stop being one of their students, so they really don't have any reason to listen to you anymore.
There is a solution: It's called feedback, and you can do it without finding a new apartment.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
People with real CS degrees go on to form neat companies with technologies like Tivo and Google.
What your mistaking for CS majors are not "Scientists" but more like "Technologists" as a field. There is a difference. IMO, if it turns into a profession where your doing *exactly* what people tell you to design without using your expertise, you better only have one of those 2 year 'programming' degrees from a community college.
CS is what you make of it. Remember that.
Same applies to system administrators, but not in the same fashion.
In any profession, I think, you need to come up with goals early that you are working for someone and trying to gain as much freedom to do the best things for your employer under minimal supervision. If your employer won't let you do that on your own, theres a problem. Micromanaged workplaces suck.
-- dieman - Scott Dier
And if Microsoft did the same that would be fine. However, Microsoft is tying the price of their operating system and office suite to the acceptance of their development tools as part of the curriculum. Sun gave away their development tools and class materials, to pretty much anyone that wanted them, with no strings attached.
That's a fairly substantial difference.
If Microsoft were to give their development tools away to all takers then I wouldn't be surprised if some Universities used the language. However, that's not what this is about. This is about giving the entire University access to cheap Windows and MS Office licenses if the University will make sure that their CS students learn only MS technologies. That's pretty much exactly the reason that MS got into all of that trouble with the DOJ.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again. You could teach a CS course with any functionally complete language that allows real pointers. You can even use Java, I guess, but you need to teach students about the machine that the code runs on then - the JVM. The concepts are all the same, or very framiliar. The problem is that the universities have sold out to people wanting to learn technology to make a quick buck, and not interested in the theory and operating principles of a computer. Things like interprocess communications, memory management, network theory..
If you have a solid grounding in your fundamentals, learning a new language is easy. Mastering a language takes years, but once you've mastered one, moving between them is not a problem. Unless, of course, you don't have a solid grounding in the basics. When I was in school, we used Modula-2 for all of the intro programming courses. You could use C or modula for the software engineering courses (2nd/3rd year). Most of the higher level courses let you use what you wanted. I didn't expect the school to teach me to be a Java programmer. Now, the school uses Java in those intro courses. This is very confusing to newbies, and has resulted in a pile of engineers (who take the CS courses in 1st/2nd year) that need to be taught what pointers are in another course.
Universities should be ashamed for selling out like this, because the focus on theory and fundamentals is what differentiates University from a technical school. There is nothing wrong with a technical/hands on approach, but the two are designed to accomplish different things.
The above nonsense with Microsoft is why I took engineering in University and not computer science. The hordes of people looking to make a quick buck and the adminstration catering to them was a turnoff. Nobody survives dynamics, analog design, digital systems and electromagnetic fields & waves and the like without understanding the fundamentals at some level.
Nothing against microsoft, but there's something to be said about teaching age-old information and not what corporation XYZ thinks is best for you, this month.
The title of this message is referring to a College, but most of the comments are directed at Universities, so I hope I have the distinction correct.
..don't panic
I looked around a bit and found this helpful list of all state Freedom of Information laws.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
If you think it's less evil to use Java in a curriculuum you've got some serious morality problems.
.NET crap you want, and we better see this entering your curriculum or else you lose your discounts and we audit your asses.
I've seen this argument many times. ALL PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE IS NOT EQUIVALENTLY EVIL.
LESS EVIL: Here, have all the Java crap you want.
MORE EVIL: Here, have all the
Do you see the difference?
Java is, IMHO, a really really awful choice for a teaching language.
As a matter of fact, I have serious doubts about an OO language *period* as a first language.
What I've pretty consistently seen is people getting started on Java having to deal with a pretty high up-front cost. They have to get OO architecture, a ton of terminology, protection, and casting shoved down their throat before they can really write simple programs (more than Hello World).
What I've seen in a lot of intro CS classes is that the profs try to teach all the terminology and concepts first (in a pretty abstract manner) so that they can use the terms, and then start teaching the mechanics of the language. Everyone promptly gets lost.
BASIC was a really great language to get people programming in, because it was so incredibly simple to start someone coding reasonably well. You could teach everything needed to write a full-blown program very quickly, then spend time building on a concrete foundation, instead of a bunch of abstracts.
Pascal is pretty simple that way. C is a pain to debug and has a few syntax warts (the syntax of the for loop, the printf syntax...), but it's almost as good to teach things to students with. C++ is only usable as a first language if it's used pretty much like C at first. If you start introducing the entire language up front, you lose a lot of people.
Some people have promoted Scheme as a good first language. I personally think decent static typing is pretty important to someone that may be making type errors left and right, but Scheme is still probably not a bad choice.
Anyway, like I said, Java is a truly shitty language to introduce someone to coding on. It's (potentially) a really sexy language to someone that has a C++ history.
Personally, I'd say that a procedural version of BASIC is probably the best sort of intro language I can think of. Very low cost to entry, not a lot of concepts to bang your head into.
May we never see th
I mean, for chrissake. Anyone else remember the umich Mac freeware/shareware archive? Predated Info-Mac by a bit, but was excellent. Only notable thing I'm aware of about umich, too. :-)
And now they've made a complete about-face?
May we never see th
They said...
>>One of the few joys I had rubbing Mac OS X in my advisor's face
>You see, this is why I'm anti-Mac. Well, one of the reasons. Mac people pretend to be better than me. That really pisses me off.
Though you may think that's the case, think about what Mac and Linux and OS/2 and Amiga, and Atari 2600, and TRS-80 users go through every time they have to listen to a Windows user extolling either some amazing, new, innovative feature in Windows that the rest of the world has had for years, or a dozen other similar conversations along similar lines.
Now keep in mind, I'm not accussing you of this. I am merely pointing out that so many Windows users seem to wonder why users of every other OS seem to evangelize their OS... and perhaps that's a big part of it. Tired of hearing the shit from MS, and Windows users who just plain and simply dont know better. It's not entirely the Win users fault, and I know in my case, I found unenlightened Win users more funny than anything... it's very much MS's and the media's fault though - and they I did indeed get very pissed at.
Of course, any response from me - because Windows wasnt my OS of choice, made me a zealot. This, by the way, was when MS had big shares in Ziff Davis, who used to go as far as printing MS pre-prepared "media kits" as Win95 reviews, even in 3 different publications in one particular case, 2 written by one author, the 3rd written by someone else... identical to the word though... identical also to the copy that MS sent us at CompUSA. Oh - and mostly false. True 32 bit, no more DOS, 4MB of RAM... I'm sure you remember all those early claims that MS made that were just pure bs.
So... people wonder why users of other OS's seem to lean towards zealotry? Perhaps it's because many Win users, without knowing better, have went far beyond that extreme... we may brag about what our OS can do, and probably did long before Windows could... but Win users brag often about what their OS is NOT (like stable, secure, fast, slim, non resource hungry, etc...), or about features that their OS had last out of the pack - because they believe the "propaghanda" (for lack of a better word) that they hear in MS ads and paid "reviews".
Again, nothing personal... but perhaps something every Win user should think of the next time they wanna get mad at the user of another OS for being proud of what their OS can do...
- Rob
(Heck, I'm still waiting for MS's promised 64 way cpu support - since 1995... )
WebMaster:
BinFeeds
XXX Thumbnailed Image Newsgroups but
And I don't care what you say about capitalism's evil business practices.
It's the humans, not capitalism, who have evil business practices. Let's place the blame where it is due. There are lots of honest and ethical business owners and employers who are overshadowed by the crummy ones. I pride myself in being honest, fair, and compassionate to my employees and my customers who, without which, my business and livliehood would fail.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.