Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Improves Its Licensing Terms
prostoalex writes "Microsoft offers to pick up the legal tab, in case anyone gets pulled to court for using its products. News dot com dot com has a rather informative outline of new policies: Microsoft will cover unlimited expenses on injury and infringement claims, the company quadrupled the warranty on its products to a 12-month length, and the companies audited for licensing compliance will now get a 30-day warning instead of 15-day one."
Where is coverage for security issues?
M.B.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
With the SCO suit, there's been a shift of attention : non open source companies assume legal risks for you, while open source software do not, thus explaining the difference in costs between the 2 types of offering.
See also heated thread regarding Hibernate on www.theserverside.com.
Sneak teach kids Algebra using a game
How will anyone be able to prove infringement if it's close source?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
I think Microsoft purchased a SCO license purely to feed the fire. A large company like Microsoft purchasing a SCO license will make their claims seem more valid in the public eye. It's more of a PR move than anything else.
This is a pretty smart, although probably not overly significant, maneuver on MS's part. It won't cost them very much at all, but gives them an advantage in dealing with those parties who usually aren't central to the software purchasing process, but can get in the way (legal staff, procurement specialists, etc.).
I highly doubt this will impact their competitive stance against other systems, but what it could do is reduce the duration of the sales cycle, and thus help their overall performance as a company.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
With its new contract, Microsoft is effectively promising customers it will insulate them from those kind of messy legal problems.
We all knew that Microsoft considered Linux a threat, but this is the first positive "captilalistic competitiveness" move I've seen on Microsoft's part. It seems that Linux is pushing Microsoft to improve its standards in order to compete more. That's one positive thing through this whole mess, Microsoft is actually forced to compete for our business now.
--Clint
One of the arguments regarding the SCO case has been that Linux users are at risk, but that's not any different than users of any other OS. To say that Linux is some kind of special exception, is just dishonest.
Or rather, it was dishonest. But now MS is setting itself apart. Microsoft has found a way to use their most important asset (not technology, not their employees, not their products -- just their big fat wad of cash) to differentiate themselves from all the others.
Also, this does something else. This is the first time I have ever heard of something in Microsoft EULAs that is actually for the user. Instead of take, take, take, the agreement would actually be something-for-something. To date, only a tiny fraction of their users actually bother to license their software. Most just buy it. But this could change that.
The big question becomes: is this all bullshit? Are software users really liable for the behavior of third parties? When you put it that way, it seems ridiculous. But software has function -- it does stuff. If your computer does something in violation of some patent, it's your agent that is doing it, at your direction, on your behalf. Is it relevant that someone else gave the instructions on how to do it? I can look up a patent in a database and quote it to you, but if you then follow those directions that I gave you, you're the one who is violating the patent, not me.
If this type of thinking were legitimized, it would be disasterous for the software industry. This is the first step toward making software something that can only be sold by megacorps, or bonded programmers, or something. Gates himself probably never would have been able to even get started, in an environment like that.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
So Microsoft will protect VOLUME licensees. That helps Joe Blow how?
They upped their warranty to 12 months? Why is it only 12 months? Why shouldn't I be able to trust that the software will run correctly on the intended setup five years down the road? It's not like my car, where it degrades over time.
Even the analyst News.com.com interviewed had questions on whether this event is monumental.
Plus, MS is just using this to spread FUD over Linux. "If you get sued for our products, we'll protect you. Linux can't do that."
Now, assume SCO tells us:
Hey, we claim that Windoze contains SCOde, so you gotta pay us $1,500 per license to avoid litigation...
Now, reading this:
In older contracts, Microsoft agreed to pay all legal fees for volume license customers who got sued because of Microsoft, but only up to the value of the software they bought.
But, my Corporate license was offered at a price of $120 per seat. So there's still a loss of $1,300 per seat, even if MS foots the bill!! Very clever, typical MS.
-
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
This is a good way for M$ to get more (like they need it) free publicity and spread FUD at the same time.
In a normal business agreement there is often a clause that indemnifies the parties from lawsuits as a result of the other party's whatever. Only in software licenses where the user generally gets mugged on paper (you have no rights, they all belong to sw company) does this often get neglected. I've seen some licenses where the user agrees to hold the sw maker harmless and pay for ALL sw maker's legal costs in a lawsuit (example, you use product X from company M in a medical device, something goes wrong, patient dies, patient family sues you and company M due to supposed defect in device, you get pay M's legal bills in that case [M does not mean M$, just a letter for an example]).
M$ is just putting some of that standard language back. Most of all, it makes FUD arguments sound more legitimate. "Sure you save money up front on those open source programs, but what happens when SCO or the real authors of what's in that open source program comes knocking on your door demanding payment for your use of what was stolen from them? We are there for you. Our goal is to make you succeed. You don't have to worry about that problem with us, and in the unlikely event someone alleges impropriety and you end up in court with our product, you won't have to spend money on lawyers. We are here to protect you. Just sign right here."
Now here's one for you. It seems I recall that people have pointed out a few GPL code violations, running "strings" on a few M$ Windows DLL and EXEs revealed some amazing things. Now we know they used BSD code, but if they did use GPL or other code that they were not free to "incorporate" into their products, now that M$ is taking this step, maybe it is time to start seeking to proove the thefts and target M$ customers like SCO is targetting Linux customers.
. 62,400 repetitions make one truth -- Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
All software vendors should be responsible for IP claims on the software that they sell. Yes, that includes commercial Linux distros. Yes, that includes hobbyists selling shareware products. If you take money for it, you're saying that you have the rights to sell it. If you don't, then you're a thief and a liar.
Disclosure of interest: I work for a company that's pathological about keeping third party code out of our products. We sell to embedded device manufacturers and we simply cannot afford to get this wrong, because they will sue us until we glow, then hang us in the dark if we do.
There is absolutely no reason that vendors selling to Joe Public should be held to lower standards, other than that Joe lets them get away with it. While I still think that SCO is deranged, at least they're making it clear that you'd better be damn sure that you've got the rights - all of the rights - to whatever you're selling.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody