Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Pirating Their Own Software?
14ghz writes "Microsoft gave out copies of .NET Visual Studio Pro to attendees of the Microsoft .NET Student Tour. Despite the discs saying "UNLICENSED
SOFTWARE -- Illegal without separate license from Microsoft", the freebie didn't contain any license document, and one guy decided to ask the MS conference rep about it. Read the in-progress story."
Those are bulk media discs, not pirated discs. They require a separate volume licensing key to use.
Maybe they've just decided to give out illegal copies of their software to everyone they can and then sue them over it. It's easier than getting them to trudge all the way down to the store and fork out a hundred bucks willingly.
lysergically yours
start uploading those things!!! It is in writing that there is no license for those. Your typical license says, among a bunch of other stuff, no copying, distributing... Hence, no license, distribute all you want! Free as in beer!!!
It's totally up to Microsoft to determine how to license their software, and whom to license it to.
What's the fuss? They could license it for free use to recovering crack addicts that live on the 3000 block of 1st street that wear green pants if they wanted to.
As long as some marketing monkey at MS has the OK from the higher-ups, then it's all good.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Check out the email address of the MS rep: v-sashak@microsoft.com. The 'v-' at the beginning is, IIRC, Microspeak for 'not a Microsoft employee'. It's probably a contractor or agency temp that works events who has been given an MS mail account. Which would explain the less-than-clueful answers (and why (s)he has to speak to his/her manager).
Thats an EULA (End User Liscence Agreement) not the actuall liscence itself, which is a piece of paper with the equivalent of a serial number and some leagal jargon.
What happens if the student installs it on his (or the universitie's or their workplace) PC, and the BSA shows up?
I participated in a retail program giveaway for Windows XP. The copy of WinXP Pro that I received came in a plastic sleeve with a CD-key sticker on the back, but the CD said the same thing: "Use of this disc is illegal without a separate license certificate from Microsoft." And of course, the disc didn't come with a license.
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
Presumably since this was part of a MSDNAA (Academic Alliance) Student event, all of the attendees are covered under their school's MSDNAA agreement and thus have a separate license.
Nothing to see here, please drive by.
Obviously microsoft has the right to allow you to use the software, with or without a license. The question in this case is:
Is Microsoft okay with this, or are the higher-ups unaware of what is happening here?
How can he prove this software is legal?
Is Microsoft falsly advertising? Software that is only for non-commercial use IS NOT the same as the software that is worth $109, so he did not recieve what was advertised.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
And Linux is going to make a credible challenge as a desktop operating system.
And my Mom will eventually know that FreeBSD is not Unix.
And Hillary Rosen will be discovered with a 10,000 song library on a Kazaa SuperNode in her basement and get sued for ten trillin quadrillion dollars.
Then there will finally be peace on Slashdot, and it will be converted into hotornot2.com
We can only pray.
------
Believe me, I'm as surprised by my comment as you are.
in my district, i had proposed several linux based solutions, from turning old p120's into thin X clients, to file servers, yada yada. all were shot down like a duck on opening day. so, i get to talking to our site district technidiot. turns out he goes to some microsoft seminars and they throw out VS, 2K pro, office pro, everything. in fact he laughed because he had a "no reg. key" copy cd. so next time you wonder why there is not the movement you would think towards FOSS, this is why. why would our district want to use FOSS, when the microsoft reps throw out cd's like halloween candy. the reps know full well that the schools have to pay, and they know how to get "the right people on board". it is so easy and cheap for them.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
The dude who posted the article should have had the common decency to obscure the name of the person at Microsoft that he was corresonding with. I have had my name posted on the internet with correspondance I made on behalf of my employer and it always makes me uncomfortable.
Further, the guy is probably some frontline peon who really has no control over anything there and has only been given the vaguest of guidelines on how to operate. No sense sticking his name out on the net for future harassment or embarassment.
I really think doing that was a bad move and anyone in the tech industry should have the common decency not to do that to a colleague.
He is the Student Co-ordinator for Academic .Net. His name and email are on the business card that is given out to every single student that attends one of these conferences.
Some guy in my dorm must work for microsoft too. He gives out copies of everything that microsoft makes on CD for free. All the programs have names like Verbatim, Memorex, and CenDyne.
I've never heard of those programs, but they work for typing up term papers really well!
Man stops MS from giving away there software.
when asked, the person replied "well its obvious? I'm a pendantic ass".
well there you have it...
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Microsoft is making a real effort (i.e. Activation in Windows XP and Office) to eliminate software piracy. If Microsoft is serious about it's licensing policy, then the company shouldn't have a double standard in regards to it's own people handing out software. If Lance wants to make sure that he has a legitimate product before investing the time to learn it and use it, that seems to me like the right thing to do.
Either make the product free/open source/what ever and give it away, or license the product and charge for it. You can't do both and be legitimate. If you do, people like us will just make snide comments at you and not take you seriously.
Linux is only free if you consider your time worthless
I work for a major retail computer chain. We used to have training events with all kinds of software vendors (microsoft, mcafee, mgi, datavis, roxio, etc.) and they used to give out all kinds of free software so that we could try thier products in hopes that if we used them we would reccommend the software to our customers. Now, due to the current economy a lot of these training events have stopped, but even at the ones that still do occur (microsoft included) we dont get NEARLY the amount of handouts that we used to. Again, it could probably be argued that this is due to economic conditions, and I would agree if they were handing out keyboards or processors, but for the cost of them to manufacture a CD they dont lose money as compared to what they will make on our reccomendations to customers.
Anyway, back to my point. It seems to me that this guy is just trying to cause trouble for troubles sake, OR is trying to prove a point with regards to liscencing laws. While I agree with the sentiments, I DO NOT agree with the ammunition he is using for his fight.
All he is effectively doing is making these companies more gunshy to hand out free software to resellers like myself, or anyone else who attends training events like the one he did to get his software. The companies wont want to deal with a deluge of email like this, or go throught the trouble of making special key sets for promotional NFR (not for resale) software, etc. Actually, we USED to get software that was stamped NFR all over it, but they stopped this and started handing out "real" versions under volume lisences because there were more costs involved with producing NFR sets rather than using existing stock.
Youre looking a gift horse in the mouth and will end up ruining things for yourself and everyone else just to prove a point!
This guy could make a hundred copies of that CD, hand them and the key out to his friends, but if there was a license, only one would have that legal document proving ownership. A CD and a key number don't prove legal ownership.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Absolutely. Now Microsoft has a list of people who they can audit and definately find that they are using illegal unlicencesed software. A claim that someone at M$ told you that pirating was OK is hardly going to be a defense.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
The EULA is an "agreement" between you and the company that you won't do anything they prohibit with your license. A license is simply a document saying that this software is legally yours, and generally has a serial number on it. The EULA usually states you can't copy licenses software for non-licensed users, so there you go.
Slashdot is a waste of time. I enjoy wasting time.
"Slashdot...will be converted into hotornot2.com"
Hopefully few (if any) of the members of the current site will be allowed to post on the new one...
I left a few minutes early and they said they'd mail us VS.NET because they couldn't find it.
Seriously though, why would you be such a biatch to someone who's trying to do something FOR you. She helped coordinate the event that gave you FREE food (although those wraps were a funky colour), FREE software, and FREE sessions.
Oh well, I've read enough complaining in this post already; it's about time I stop contributing to it. I can't believe this made the front page.
>And delete the software with a very good deleter utility before they bribe the cops to come with a search warrant.
I reccomend a mix of microwave and grinder.
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
Check out this
Amendment to Master End-User License Agreement (For the Microsoft Developer Network Academic Alliance Program)
This amendment (the "Amendment") to the Master End-User License Agreement for the Microsoft Developer Network Subscription (the "EULA") is a legal agreement between Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") and a Qualified Educational User approved by Microsoft for participation in the Microsoft Developer Network Academic Alliance Program ("MSDN Academic Alliance Program"). This Amendment allows for the not-for-profit instructional and non-commercial research use by a Qualified Educational User (as hereinafter defined) of the Product provided under the EULA. This Amendment further allows the Qualified Educational User to utilize the Product for the not-for-profit design, development and testing of software applications or hardware created by Qualified Educational User. Product includes subscription UPDATES provided by Microsoft (as defined in the EULA).
You can obtain a media kit for just about any Microsoft product by calling your local Microsoft Product Fulfillment sales office. Most of the kits cost $24.95. That includes things like Windows 2000 Server, Exchange 2000 Server, etc. Any software media you get this way will be marked "Unlicensed Software -- Illegal Without Separate License From Microsoft".
The general idea here is that software -- all software -- is licensed independently of the media it comes on. For example, if you lose or damage your Windows install CD, you can order a replacement for a small fee. The license that you purchased originally is still valid, and is what counts.
These CDs are also used with the various volume licensing programs (Open, Select, and so on) that Microsoft offers. Basically, you order licenses for your organization separately, and then order however many media kits you want or need. You can find more information on these programs at http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/.
Now, as far as these discs go: Without a separate license agreement, they are not legal to use. It sure sounds to me that no such license agreement was distributed. I would be very careful about using such media unless I received an agreement.
The fact that some marketing dweeb at Microsoft handled them out is not enough. The fact that the same dweeb said it was okay is not enough, either. A dweeb is not a legal license agreement. Those facts would give you plausible denial in court, and likely decide the case in your favor, but it would have to go to court.
Finally, I doubt Microsoft has any nefarious intentions here. I suspect that Microsoft is just like any other large company, and that as such, they employ people (like this marketing dweeb) who don't understand that software licensing is a legal contract. I'm sure it never occurred to him that he was doing something wrong. Most people don't think before they pirate software. Heck, far too many people don't think, period.
The fact that Microsoft's own people have this problem is certainly ironic, and highlights just how crazy the world of software licensing is.
Zealots, please note: Free/Open Source Software is still licensed. You need to very carefully understand your rights and obligations under a software license, be it a Microsoft EULA, the BSD license, or the GPL. Failure to do so may open you up to legal problems, regardless. (Go ahead and incorporate some GPL code into a closed product, and see how the FSF reacts.)
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
...to the University of Calgary. The license need not be represented by one of those nifty little certificates with intricate graphics, numbers and holograms all over it. It is entirely possible that in return for letting MS put on its dog-and-pony show microsoft granted some sort of volume licensing deal with the UofC.
I agree with the article that "Sasha" (the MS point-of-contact for the student tour) is out of the loop concerning licensing issues--understandable since keeping everything straight is something akin to brain surgery and rocket science. Sasha might reply after talking to one of the MS High Priests of Licensing saying as much as I've stated above.
If in doubt, ultimately I'd talk to the UofC's Computing Services department--or the departments of Computing Science or Computer Engineering--to inquire about how student licensing works (ie it it technically property of the U of C and you only buy the media--or whatever).
I don't know how it works at the U of C, but at the U of Alberta bookstore, you didn't need to be a student to buy most anything there, but for software it was a different story--you needed to present a valid, current student ID card and fill out documentation before you could cart your purchase home.
It was many years ago when I did that (1996), however when I bought MS Office it didn't come with the same licensing documentation (certificate, registration postcards, etc) that retail (or even OEM) software was packed with. Perhaps that meant it was licensed to the U of A for use by all students who bought the media. However I didn't really care then about the legal details of licensing at the time. Come to think of it, I don't now either. I don't purposely go out of my way to "steal" MS software, but it gets legally murky when your software library from MS is a mishmash of retail, OEM, NFR copies obtained from being a former "MS Partner" and student editions. If I worried about it I'd get ulcers and never have time to do real work.
No you don't. Because then they'll get search warrants and they'll come back, your hardware gets impounded for investigation and you won't have access to it for several months before the powers that be figure out there's nothing illegal on there.
Why do you think BSA audits scare companies so much?
I'm unemployed, you insensitive clod!
No, really. I'd install it all day on lots computers. Later, if they paid me enough, I might even support the IDE for it.
Get off my launchpad!
Those papers Microsoft gives out are "End User License Agreements" and "Certificate[s] of Authenticity", they are not "Licences".
The EULA says you must have a licence, but it doesn't say what constitutes a license.
The best evidence you can provide of licensing is a receipt for the software from an authorized retailer. Otherwise you can hold up all the Certificates of Authenticity, original media and EULAs you want and you still could have bought the package from Bob down the street... which violates the terms of the EULA.
If you notice all the emails from Sasha to Lance, it states "Sasha Krsmanovic (ManPower)"
Manpower is a consulting firm.
They wrote the software, they can give it away, and give people permission to use it without a license if they so choose. Although it might be in their best interests to have done so in writing.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
IANAL, but it's not just obnoxious, it's illegal- regardless of whether you obscure the names. Unless I specify otherwise, any communication I send you is intended for you, and you only. If you forward it to someone else, or, say, post it online for all to read, I can sue you. It's quite similar to how you may not tape-record a conversation without my permission.
Unless the content is quite obviously harmless, I ask the permission of the sender before forwarding a message from them to a mailing list(or cc'ing others in a reply that contains part of their comments, quoted.) It is at the very least considered good manners.
MS could quite easily slap him with a cease-and-desist letter, although it'd probably draw even more attention to the matter, one which, at the very least, seems almost entirely pointless and will be forgotten in a day or two.
Please help metamoderate.
Poor Lance is already in violation of the restrictions on the media they gave him... he made an illegal copy and posted it on the Internet.
What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I wouldn't put that kind of sneaky, technically legal kind of behavior past Microsoft. After all the attacked elementary schools in Oregon why not university students.
However I really doubt this is a trap. Dot Net is a hurting piece of technology that offers very little advantage to anyone except people who are already tied into a microsoft solution.
Most articles that I have read have suggested that companies take a "wait and see" approach before adopting dot net. Of course if every body listened to this advice then few would adopt the new frameworks and the whole thing can fizzle worse than the XBox. I think that Microsoft is going to follow their old strategy of giving to away for cheap, until people depend on it then crank up the price.
sometime in early March last year. I had the same concern and I didn't install any of the stuff I got until some time later I read on MS's site that the software was licensed. They also gave out Visual Studio .NET Academic t-shirts, a free full copy of WinXP Pro (using it on my gaming machine), some mints in a strange tin that you have to press on the top to open and squeeze the sides to lock (mmmm... mints), a Visual Studio .NET pen and I can't remember what else. In short, this story is a false alarm, MS does a lot of evil stuff, but this isn't a case of it.
/.
Wow, I never thought I'd be defending MS, especially on
Microsoft isn't at fault here. Good grief, all everyone here does is complain about Microsoft's draconian licensing system, then when they try and give something away they get jumped all over.
I mean, geeze. In that e-mail exchange the story linked to, one participant wasn't making sense, and it certainly wasn't Microsoft. 'Here, have this software' 'There's no license' 'Well you can use it for non-commercial use' 'Just this software?'. That last one kills me; he knows perfectly well that 'for that single piece of software we gave you you don't need a license' doesn't imply in any way that he doesn't need a license for ANY Microsoft software ever again. Don't try to make it sound like MS is being all contradictory.
Although it was wise for the submitter to check whether he was on solid legal grounds, it seems most uncivil of him to bring all this attention to the employee over such a relatively minor matter as this. Sasha seemed to be handling the problem with all expediency, and I imagine the issue would have been resolved had submitter merely waited and continued to correspond with him. Now tens of thousands of people know about this and Sasha risks getting in trouble with his superiors.
Submitting the site to slashdot was unjustified in light of how the problem was being handled, and it was a breach of trust on the part of the submitter.
Sasha's last response went like this:
Hi Lance
I am going to forward your request to my managers. Please stay tuned, I will get back at you ASAP.
Sounds like he's gonna sic the ms lawyers on you for messing with him. =)
If MS is writing of the $109 for every copy of this software they give away, but are not in fact giving away the part of the software (license) that's worth the $109, wouldn't that be fraud?
Not true, it is perfectly legal to make back-up copies so that you don't damage the original media.
Jesus saves and takes half damage.
Yes, software is like drugs.
You give it away or sell it very cheap, until your enough customers are hooked.
Then you raise prices.
Remember piracy is the best thing that has ever happened to Microsoft.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That sounds absolutely incorrect. Have you ever heard of investigative journalism?
I don't know what the exact state of the law is in the US, but certainly where I am (New Zealand) it's fully legal to record and/or disclose a private conversation as long as at least one of the participants is aware that it's happening. The exception is if there's a legally binding agreement between the parties that restricts disclosure.
Having said that, I agree that it's not very polite to disclose the name of the Microsoft employee on these emails. There's no need in this case except to embarass someone who probably doesn't deserve to be embarassed.
RMS was caught pirating his own GNU software at a tradeshow.
http://saveie6.com/
There's another phrase for when a company pirates it's own software.
It's called "legitimate and legal use".
oops.
It's been a long time.
You're joking, right?
click
Not in Australia, it isn't.
three words back;
Norton disk recovery
You have no idea how LITTLE information a DOS format actually erases do you? "NONE AT ALL"
Here's a better idea.
Boot knoppix
switch to a root shell
for wipe in 5 4 3 2 1; do dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/hda ; done ; dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda
Go to bed; it'll be all finished by morning.
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
Think about it.
Spammers usually define spamming as "That which they do not do."
Here, we have a case where Microsoft is simply redefining software piracy as "That which we do not do."
Since Microsoft has also been known to spam, and has tried to weaken anti-spam laws in their favor, it comes as no surprise to me that the left hand has no idea of what the right is doing when it comes to handing out software.
Spammer logic. Amazing -- and kind of frightening -- how contagious it is.
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
If someone from MS is giving me 8 CD's full of software & telling me that I can use it for free, I'm going to keep my big mouth shut except to say thank you. Why bother questioning the freaking license. If there was a problem, believe me, MS would not be handing out discs.
There isn't a problem now, but what if, for whatever reason, they decided they didn't like you found their software on your computer asked for your license which you couldn't produce?
You would be screwed.
Is this likely? I very seriously doubt it.
Is it possible? Yes.
Another possibility. MS denies that the rep had the authority to do such a thing. You are guilty of accepting stolen (pirated?) goods.
I assume this was actually a MS sponsored thing, so this scenario is even less likely than the previous one, but again possible.
That is the issue here.
Is it worth being worried about? Most likely not, but the legal system seems to run largely on these tiny nit pics.
That MS finds it nit-picking is humorus--except that that nit-picking is exactly what they expect companies, schools, users to do to remain legal. This is the the same laziness they are fighting tooth-n-nail to stop!
It's interesting that MS wants to play fast-n-loose with the rules while turning around and then later holding you to it--this guy's exactly right to make an issue out of it! That is exactly the problem with software licensing-it's become outright draconian! Just because it's MS giving out MS software doesn't mean they shouldn't follow the rules too! The big-wigs want to argue over details like this when it's you or I, but don't want to be bothered themselves if license tracking would cost too much!