Microsoft To Issue Blanket License To NGOs

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft To Issue Blanket License To NGOs

Posted by Soulskill on Monday September 13, 2010 @10:30AM from the making-it-better dept.

itwbennett writes "Following a recent report that Russian police have used software copyright raids to seize computers of activist groups, Microsoft announced it will issue a blanket software license to nonprofit groups and journalist groups outside the US. The new blanket license should remove software piracy as an excuse for 'nefarious actions' by enforcement authorities, Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith wrote. The new license 'cuts in one swoop the Gordian knot that otherwise is getting in the way of our desired handling of these legal issues,' he said. 'The law in Russia (and many other countries) requires that one must provide truthful information about the facts in response to a subpoena or other judicial process. With this new software license, we effectively change the factual situation at hand. Now our information will fully exonerate any qualifying [nonprofit], by showing that it has a valid license to our software.'"

255 comments

and the qualifier is... by bsDaemon · 2010-09-13 10:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

And the qualifier is, of course, "qualifying." The article doesn't say who qualifies, and says that journalists and NGOs don't have to do anything to get the license, which means they don't find out that they don't qualify until they're in the same situation they're already facing, I guess.
1. Re:and the qualifier is... by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-09-13 10:37 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  And the qualifier is, of course, "qualifying." The article doesn't say who qualifies
  The article does not, because it talks about a future event ("will issue a license"). I would imagine that the text of said license would go for over 40 pages (as usual) detailing out who qualifies for what.
2. Re:and the qualifier is... by Wyatt+Earp · 2010-09-13 10:40 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Being on the State Department or EU terrorist list is probably going to keep a group for qualifying.
  Here is a wiki of who is on whose list
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_organizations
3. Re:and the qualifier is... by vux984 · 2010-09-13 10:51 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  And the qualifier is, of course, "qualifying." The article doesn't say who qualifies, and says that journalists and NGOs don't have to do anything to get the license, which means they don't find out that they don't qualify until they're in the same situation they're already facing, I guess.
  This isn't the sort of situation where microsoft would be trying to weasel. More importantly, the way it worked from what I can tell, is that russian authorities needed Microsoft lawyers to essentially sign-off on the complaints against dissidents -- they'd indicate they had "reason to beleive" group-X was using priated software, and the MS-attack-lawyers would say 'raid away'.
  This change is essentially instructions from Microsoft to its own legal counsel saying if its an NGO or Journalist etc then they have a license, and not to be party to police requests.
  Strictly speaking they could instruct their lawyers to refuse to pursue cases against NGOs and so on without the license, but this 'grant of license' is:
  a) good PR
  b) makes it harder (impossible?) to for the police to build a software piracy case as long as the legal system isn't competely subverted. The Microsoft lawyer simply says "they are licensed" end of story. He doesn't have to say, something like "my client isn't interested in prosecuting a case against them". Its more thorough and complete this way. It changes from "they might be doing something wrong, but we don't care to find out" to "we are completely satisfied that they are licensed".
  which means they don't find out that they don't qualify until they're in the same situation they're already facing, I guess.
  As you can see they don't really need to "know they qualify". The protection is indirect - its really more a way to give microsoft's lawyers an out from having to cooperate with russian police against NGOs more than direct protection for the end user. At least that's how i read it.
4. Re:and the qualifier is... by AnonymousClown · 2010-09-13 10:57 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  FTFA:
  
  NGOs and organizations representing journalists will have to take no action to get the blanket license. Microsoft software running on their computers will be covered, Smith said.
  Yeah, yeah, yeah, this is Slashdot and the parent has a sub 1,000,000 UID - I got it.
  
  --
  RIP America
  July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
5. Re:and the qualifier is... by gman003 · 2010-09-13 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  I skimmed through that list, and all the ones that looked potentially innocent by name turned out to be legitimate terrorist or terrorist-supporting organizations. I won't say it's 100% perfect, but I didn't spot anyone on it that didn't deserve to be there. Besides, they won't bother using software license raids on, say, Aum Shinrikyo, the Islamic Army of Aden, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or the Ulster Freedom Fighters. They would just, y'know, raid them for being terrorist organizations. As far as I can see, that list is pretty much what it says: terrorist organizations.
6. Re:and the qualifier is... by Wyatt+Earp · 2010-09-13 11:13 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Right and by using something like that as the guide, then when Russia says Journalist X is a terrorist, M$ can say "no they aren't, they aren't on the State Department or Interpol's list."
  I'm waiting for Wikileaks to make State's list
7. Re:and the qualifier is... by CarpetShark · 2010-09-13 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  And the qualifier is, of course, "qualifying." The article doesn't say who qualifies,
  And it doesn't really matter, so long as you fill in the application form to tell them all about your organisation, tell MS whether it's worth having a sales rep call you, and educate yourself about Microsoft's offerings.
  Maybe if you're a really big target segment and very likely to go open source, they'll shove exchange or something like that down your throat for free. You'll end up paying for all the basic functionality that Linux gives for free, one way or another.
8. Re:and the qualifier is... by Peeteriz · 2010-09-13 12:09 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Also, in the previous cases they don't really say "my client does not want to press the issues" - Russian government had started a criminal process, and as in most criminal process the 'victim' does not get a choice to stop the persecution, and granting a license after a request would not help either (as the violation occurred in the past, when the license was not there yet) - so if the prosecutors want to press charges, they have a valid case.
  These same issues may apply to any other country where criminal penalties apply for copyright violations.
9. Re:and the qualifier is... by shoehornjob · 2010-09-13 12:36 · Score: -1, Offtopic
  
  How the hell is the parent off topic. Someone needs to give me some more mod points
  
  --
  "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
10. Re:and the qualifier is... by Nefarious+Wheel · 2010-09-13 12:38 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That was a strangely non-evil thing for Microsoft to do. My world is shifting.
  
  --
  Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
11. Re:and the qualifier is... by SpaceLifeForm · 2010-09-13 12:45 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Let me help. Non-US NGOs.
  Feel better?
  
  --
  You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
12. Re:and the qualifier is... by Fluffeh · 2010-09-13 12:47 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  The general story could be summed up with this:
  
  MS Exec: Oh shit, our name is being dragged through the mud big time and we didn't really lift a finger to stop it happening. This is bad. This is costing us more money in lost reputation than it would cost us just to give everyone a license. Joe, get right on it!
  Joe: Yessir! Free copies coming right out.
  MS Exec: Also, can we put a spin on this to say that we are supporting victims, journalists and fighting organized crime and extortion?
  Joe: Sure thing boss. Spin is being added now!
  MS Exec: Righto, that's the morning done for me, time for a coffee. Hmmm, Joe, how can we squeeze some more money out of people?
  Joe: Well, with all that free time now, perhaps we can set the lawyers on the EU again? What about we put Google through another adwords privacy scandal? Maybe we just give them a week off and feed them some more children, you know it's been almost a whole month since they last tasted child flesh...
  MS Exec: Make it happen Joe. You will go a long way here someday...
  
  --
  Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
13. Re:and the qualifier is... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 12:52 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Most probably this refers to the open charity license program policies about qualifying non-profits or some other licensing program that Microsoft may have tacked this under.
14. Re:and the qualifier is... by Eskarel · 2010-09-13 12:59 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  There are all sorts of non profit and not for profit organizations all over the world, just as there are all sorts of "journalists" all over the world. Microsoft wants to look good and protect small non profits and journalists from government interference. They don't want to allow NBC or Fox to call their entire staff "journalists" and get out of paying license fees, or allow larger not for profit organizations to do the same. Which is fair enough. I work for a not for profit which has revenues approaching a billion dollars a year in local currency, we don't need nor deserve free Microsoft licenses, nor does the PR guy at NBC.
  Now if they put in additional exceptions to rule out organizations like the FSF you might have a case that they're being nefarious(not that the FSF would want free Microsoft licenses, but that's largely beside the point), putting a qualification on non profit and journalist to stop huge corporations from dodging license fees on the other hand isn't a problem.
15. Re:and the qualifier is... by Pharmboy · 2010-09-13 13:02 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Not true. Victims might have a hard time getting prosecutors to go after a case, but I made a living getting "victims" to sign statements saying that they would not testify if they went to court, and they were always, always dropped. That was many years ago, but I can't see that being any different now, at least in the USA.
  
  --
  Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
16. Re:and the qualifier is... by c0lo · 2010-09-13 13:06 · Score: 1
  
  Let me help. Non-US NGOs.
  Do/will the Russians botnet herders qualify? After all, they are NGO-es.
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
17. Re:and the qualifier is... by bsDaemon · 2010-09-13 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  My thinking on this was, unless you know for sure that you are covered by this, what's to stop MS from deciding that for, whatever reason, they agree with the FSB or whomever raiding your office and allowing trumped-up piracy issues to be used as the pretense.
  The only reason MS is doing this now is because they got called out in the New York Times and some other major papers for basically being an active participant in providing a rational for squashing dissent. This whole idea that these same organizations can now just assume that they're covered, without really knowing for sure, just seems like a potential trap to me.
  If I were them, I'd want it in writing. Of course, if I were them, I'd probably just not pirate MS software in the first place, but that's besides the point.
18. Re:and the qualifier is... by c0lo · 2010-09-13 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  And the qualifier is, of course, "qualifying." The article doesn't say who qualifies, and says that journalists and NGOs don't have to do anything to get the license,
  NGO... Hmmm... Would, for instance, Lukoil qualify? Because they don't seem to have any gov ownership.
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
19. Re:and the qualifier is... by c6gunner · 2010-09-13 13:16 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I'm waiting for Wikileaks to make State's list
  If you're being serious, you really and truly need to seek psychiatric help. Some level of general paranoia is justified, and might even be warranted, but anyone who honestly thinks that wikileaks is going to make a terrorist list has stepped way off the beaten path.
20. Re:and the qualifier is... by shoehornjob · 2010-09-13 13:48 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  OMG this could actually be the first decent thing we've seen Microsoft do in ages....or at least since they pulled the Kin off the market.
  
  --
  "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
21. Re:and the qualifier is... by Wyatt+Earp · 2010-09-13 13:57 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I'm serious that if they keep poking at the US military, State Department and intelligence agencies, they'll end up on the receiving end of retaliation.
  If you think they can keep antagonizing the most powerful nation in the world and the most powerful military in history you are being delusional.
22. Re:and the qualifier is... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 14:38 · Score: -1, Offtopic
  
  My first and last comment.
  I have to say, as a 62 year old, that I've never seen such an assemblage of cynicism and hurt pussy as I've seen here on /.
  The majority here, in my opinion, act as if the world owes them something. As if Countries, States, Corporations, whatever organized entity mentioned should bow down and accept the grace that lives here. In the sense that the world would be such a better place if only all bowed to /.
  Like entertainers, coders, no matter how brilliant they may be, tend to think their brilliance in one field, encompasses all.
  It doesn't.
23. Re:and the qualifier is... by gman003 · 2010-09-13 14:41 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The problem is that Wikileaks has public support. The US military and intelligence services are very publicity-aware. They know that many people outside the US already consider them "evil". They know that directly attacking Wikileaks would be seen by most people as "evil". Ergo, they will not directly attack Wikileaks. They will not call in a missile strike on their servers. They will not assassinate anyone. They will probably not even risk publicity attacks, just because getting caught doing so would be more damaging than letting Wikileaks continue operating. You'll notice that they still haven't called Wikileaks "evil" or "un-American". They've said that they violate laws (true) and that their operations endanger soldiers and civilians (also true).
  
  What they WILL do is try to shut down their sources. Because, while everyone stands up for Wikileaks, very few people are actively protecting the leakers themselves. So, the US military will beef up its IT security, and bump up personnel security checks, and slow the number of leaks that get out. They can't get 100%, but they can make it difficult for Wikileaks to get intel on them, at which point Wikileaks will probably find some other organization to use as its big target.
24. Re:and the qualifier is... by Rik+Rohl · 2010-09-13 14:45 · Score: 1
  
  More like:
  Russian Gov't: We wanna raid this group cos they're pissing us off, lets pull a licensing audit.
  Russian Gov't: Hey Microsoft, we think these bastards are using pirated software.
  Microsoft: Err, I guess it's poss...
  Russian Gov't: RAID!!!
  Now it's:
  Russian Gov't: We wanna raid this group cos they're pissing us off, lets pull a licensing audit.
  Russian Gov't: Hey Microsoft! We think these bastards are using pirated software.
  Microsoft: Err, Nah, they're covered under a blanket license.
  Russian Gov't: ???? Now what?
25. Re:and the qualifier is... by ISoldat53 · 2010-09-13 15:05 · Score: 1
  
  AMEN!
26. Re:and the qualifier is... by TheSpoom · 2010-09-13 15:22 · Score: -1, Redundant
  
  Jesus, guys, can't we give them a break just once? I mean, they're solving the problem for everyone here, except maybe corrupt members of the Russian government. Do we have to make everything Microsoft does evil?
  
  --
  It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
  - E. Debs
27. Re:and the qualifier is... by Fluffeh · 2010-09-13 15:38 · Score: -1, Redundant
  
  Do we have to make everything Microsoft does evil?
  You do understand the concept of satire yes? Given Microsoft's history, it is more than appropriate.
  
  Yes, they did do a good thing here, doesn't mean that people can't take the piss out of the company.
  
  I am surprised that you missed the humor here considering your signature:
  
  It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
  - E. Debs
  Oh, and having that signature while missing the humor is called irony.
  
  Lesson over.
  
  --
  Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
28. Re:and the qualifier is... by VTI9600 · 2010-09-13 15:40 · Score: 1
  
  And the nitpicker is, of course, "nitpicking". The parent post doesn't say who is splitting hairs, or who simply can't accept good news when he sees it. Some people must always criticize the situation they're facing, I guess.
29. Re:and the qualifier is... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 15:46 · Score: 0
  
  You have no idea what an NGO actually is, do you.
30. Re:and the qualifier is... by Wyatt+Earp · 2010-09-13 15:58 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The public doesn't know who wikileaks is.
  Besides, does the US Government really care what the world public thinks? I think US Foreign Policy since 1964 shows the US really doesn't care.
  "Everyone" is not standing up for Wikileaks, hell even big transitional media outlets like Wired and Gawker are pointing at problems with Wikileaks and it's public face.
31. Re:and the qualifier is... by totally+bogus+dude · 2010-09-13 16:03 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, if I were them, I'd probably just not pirate MS software in the first place, but that's besides the point.
  You're right that it's beside the point, because no piracy has to occur in order for these raids to happen. Many of these organisations have taken great pains to understand the licensing and make sure they're fully licensed, or even over-licensed, because it's often used as an excuse to disrupt them. It doesn't help, because there's always the possibility that they have an unlicensed copy of something on some old laptop in a storage room or what have you.
  The blanket license is a ploy to allow Microsoft to honestly say, "there is no way this organisation is using our software without a license". This is much better than "we think they're fully licensed" or "we don't think they're unlicensed". At least, that's the theory.
  In practice, at best this will probably just mean the raids will be on the suspicion of them using unlicensed software from Adobe or some other vendor. But that's something that's out of Microsoft's control; all they can do is make it very hard for the FSB to abuse Microsoft's software licensing as an excuse to raid whoever they feel like when they can't find any legitimate reason to do so.
32. Re:and the qualifier is... by TheSpoom · 2010-09-13 16:11 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  Lesson over.
  Go fuck yourself. I was commenting on the vastly more posts stating some sort of negative to granting a blanket license to NGOs. I don't say this often, but if this was Apple, everyone would be sunshine and kittens. Humor's great, and the GP was pretty funny (I've seen that meme in a few forms here), but if we just bitch at everything they do without appreciating the positive, we just look like children.
  
  --
  It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
  - E. Debs
33. Re:and the qualifier is... by c0lo · 2010-09-13 16:18 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You have no idea what an NGO actually is, do you.
  It doesn't matter what I understand, and it doesn't matter what MS would understand (if it is not phrased carefully). What matters it what the Russians will understand or choose to understand in the context of their legislation.
  As the parent post noted: while MS intentions (in this instance) may be well meant, it just doesn't mean they'll have the desired effect: not without due care being paid.
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
34. Re:and the qualifier is... by Guspaz · 2010-09-13 17:01 · Score: 1
  
  Our (Canadian, so non-US) non-profit corporation (technically an NGO?) runs an Anime convention. Wouldn't that mean that we're covered by this blanket license?
35. Re:and the qualifier is... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 17:12 · Score: 0
  
  Cool. Now I can get a copy of office2011 for my 27" iMac as the only reason I use it is for creating and maintaining the information for my dissidents action group. Now I will be safe from the SIS raiding me, and save $300.
36. Re:and the qualifier is... by rtb61 · 2010-09-13 17:55 · Score: 1
  
  So how many foreign journalists will report on free open source softwarew now. How many foreign non-profits will supply and install free open source software, Within in every marketing gift from M$ there is a monopolistic lie at work.
  For foreign companies in countries where licensing issues are used to seize computer, simple use free open source software, end of problem, permanently. To make sure, publicly advertiser your use of free open source and promote it.
  Not only will the computers at your place of work be safe but also your computers at home.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
37. Re:and the qualifier is... by someone1234 · 2010-09-13 18:28 · Score: 1
  
  Strangely non-evil, i would say benevolent, if i didn't knew better. But it happened too fast, after the first report...?
  I wanna read the whole script book.
  
  --
  Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
38. Re:and the qualifier is... by Gordonjcp · 2010-09-13 18:33 · Score: 1
  
  Well, it *is* evil because they're pushing their own software on the poeple who would be most likely to switch to Open-Source, but then it's *not* evil because they're helping defuse a politically nasty situation... Aw hell, I can't tell if this is evil or not.
39. Re:and the qualifier is... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 18:44 · Score: 0
  
  Cynicism won't get the results you are looking for. Encourage them to do more.
  Well done Microsoft!
40. Re:and the qualifier is... by Lillebo · 2010-09-13 19:16 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  That was a strangely non-evil thing for Microsoft to do. My world is shifting.
  Not so strange, it's just step 3 in their "How to fix our public image and steal back clients from Google" strategy.
  1. Announce we love Open Source.
  2. Help with some Linux bug fixes.
  3. Fight some anti democracy thingy in Russia or China.
  4. Get massive press coverage from 1, 2 and 3.
  5. ???
  6. Profit
41. Re:and the qualifier is... by vegiVamp · 2010-09-13 19:16 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry, it'll also make sure they entrench themselves even more in the international NGO sector - after all, even open source can't beat free.
  
  --
  What a depressingly stupid machine.
42. Re:and the qualifier is... by Elektroschock · 2010-09-13 20:01 · Score: 1
  
  At least it is a positive event, it is damage control after what happened in Russia. Thanks Brad.
  In response to that Russian intelligence won't drop their opposition to ACTA.
43. Re:and the qualifier is... by Elektroschock · 2010-09-13 20:04 · Score: 1
  
  Probably yes. But it was the Russians who won the war and the Americans took the fame.
44. Re:and the qualifier is... by Elektroschock · 2010-09-13 20:06 · Score: 1
  
  The main advantage lies in using tools such as TOR.
45. Re:and the qualifier is... by Unipuma · 2010-09-13 20:10 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, if you look in the situation that caused all this, you'll find that even if you used open source software, you were still raided. Basically they said, no Microsoft license, has computers, raid the office. (Or more accurate, we don't like what they are saying, the 'BSA' people from Microsoft don't tell us no, we go raid their computers and hinder them in their opposition to our points of view.)
  This will remove the current blank cheque that the police in Russia is using to raid whoever they don't like, and search the computers 'when they have time for it' afterwards.
46. Re:and the qualifier is... by Peeteriz · 2010-09-13 20:55 · Score: 1
  
  Does not seem to apply here. In some crimes, there is no way to prove guilt if the victim does not testify - and that's why prosecutors may drop it. Here the government got all the evidence they wanted by confiscating the NGO's computers, and they don't really need any testimony from Microsoft to continue. And don't forget that the point is that prosecutors are intent on destroying the NGO by any legal means allowed, not finding some abstract justice - with such motivation the same laws could be applied also in USA.
47. Re:and the qualifier is... by ooshna · 2010-09-13 21:22 · Score: 1
  
  I love how no matter what good things Microsoft or Bill Gates does people still try to twist it as them just trying to cover up some other evil or only doing it for a good PR spin.
  "Hey bill Gates has donated over 58 billion of his own money to charity"
  "Pfft. Who cares its like me donating $5. Its nothing more than a PR stunt if he really wanted to do something nice he would donate all he has"
48. Re:and the qualifier is... by Ganthor · 2010-09-13 23:35 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Agree, It's a really good things they are doing.
  
  Like or hate their software, business practices etc they've tried to help here.
  
  So suck it up slash dotters, regardless of the reasons or underlying "side benefits" they are doing something to protect free speech and free press. I thought you Americans thought that stuff was the bees knees?!!
  
  Strikes me as curious that you'd try and find the bad in that!
49. Re:and the qualifier is... by tehcyder · 2010-09-13 23:45 · Score: 1
  
  They've said that they violate laws (true) and that their operations endanger soldiers and civilians (also true)
  
  Er, [citation needed} on that one, I think.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
50. Re:and the qualifier is... by gman003 · 2010-09-13 23:59 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, the public knows who Wikileaks is. Maybe not every member of the public, but more than enough to defend it.
  
  Yes, the US Government cares what the world thinks. Most importantly, the politicians in charge are very sensitive to the opinion of their electorate - if the public is defending Wikileaks, nobody in an elected position is going to outright attack them. And the military is fully controlled by the government, and won't attack it without orders.
  
  Are people criticizing Wikileaks? Yes. Usually with some justification. Wikileaks is not perfect. Their "sanitization" of the Afghanistan data shows that much.
  
  What you need to look at is the big picture - Wikileaks is being publicly defended, and all the attacks have so far been in the form of a press conference, not a cruise missile.
51. Re:and the qualifier is... by GameboyRMH · 2010-09-14 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  Huh? They just don't want these NGOs switching software...MS would rather have people pirating MS software than using something else (especially open source), they've said so in the past. They're making so many gigafucktons of money any difference in profit will be basically irrelevant. They probably make more every time some stupid DLC item is made available for an Xbox360 game than when an NGO stocks up on Windows/Office licenses. And outside the US, there's a good chance these companies would have just pirated the software anyways.
  Now in case someone wants to argue that they just don't want their software to be an excuse for carrying out raids, even if an NGO isn't using any...then what difference does it make? The government could just carry out raids saying they're looking for pirated Adobe or Apple software, or even Red Hat software. Every commercial software vendor in the world isn't going to do the same thing. No, MS just wants people to stay dependent their crack instead of going clean, because they can still profit from these customers later.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
52. Re:and the qualifier is... by GameboyRMH · 2010-09-14 00:46 · Score: 1
  
  So now the government will say "no Adobe license, has computers, raid the office."
  http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1786066&cid=33572296
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
53. Re:and the qualifier is... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-14 00:51 · Score: 0
  
  Fuck off bronze leaguer.
54. Re:and the qualifier is... by GameboyRMH · 2010-09-14 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with Wyatt Earp's sibling post. Why wouldn't Wikileaks be listed as a terrorist organization?
  Especially considering they could conveniently be called "cyberterrorists" in the midst of all today's cyber-fear-mongering. The "cyber-defense" companies would love to have a proper cyber-bogeyman to point to as well. If there are high-ranking politicians invested in these companies (I remember a previous US "cyber czar" owned one), there will be all the ingredients for "operation Internet freedom."
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
55. Re:and the qualifier is... by dwiget001 · 2010-09-14 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  Non-evil? Are you kidding?
  It's just part of a greater Microsoft strategy to get and keep the Microsoft brand in front of people. It's the same evil, different day.
56. Re:and the qualifier is... by x2A · 2010-09-14 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  You do know that Bill Gates has only donated a bajillion dollars to find a cure for HIV so that people with AIDS can live long enough to have to buy Windows 8 don't ya? The same with malaria! Evil b***ard!!!
  
  --
  The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
57. Re:and the qualifier is... by rtb61 · 2010-09-14 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  Of course if your Linux Operating system is properly secured it makes it rather difficult for them to ask for user name and password to check for M$ software, makes no sense at all does it. That's why you publicise your use of free open source software.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
58. Re:and the qualifier is... by x2A · 2010-09-14 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  6 was actually a big failure, everybody hated it, was really slow 'n crashy. I think 7 was profit.
  
  --
  The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
59. Re:and the qualifier is... by x2A · 2010-09-14 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently Wikileaks is a military target. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX_kcPyRw50
  
  --
  The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
60. Re:and the qualifier is... by rtb61 · 2010-09-14 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  Grow up, no count all the the value of all the FOSS licences given away free over the last decade for Linux equal to in value to top dollar windows server licences, what's that now, a thousand dollars a shot. So say around 30 million Linux users with full server licences times a thousand dollars a shot given away free year in and year out. Now and in all the other FOSS software given away free. There is a whole lot more public benefit in giving it away free than charging through the nose for it and giving back only a small percentage for marketing purposes.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
61. Re:and the qualifier is... by ooshna · 2010-09-14 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  Yes your right he should have gave away all those licenses instead of charging for them. I mean who cares if he would never have ahd the billions to give away to great causes then if all those businesses would have saved some money. I'm sure they would have taken those savings and either past it on to their consumers or donated it themselves.
62. Re:and the qualifier is... by darien.train · 2010-09-14 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  You'll notice from your troll rating that any deviation from the standard talking point that everything MS does is an attack on open source cannot be tolerated. Maybe it is an attack and maybe it isn't but no discussion on the topic that does not assume it is cannot be viewed or discussed by others on this board. Thanks for playing and hope you do a better job of reinforcing group-think in the future.
  
  --
  I don't know how many years on this Earth I got left. I'm going to get real weird with it. - Frank Reynolds
63. Re:and the qualifier is... by darien.train · 2010-09-14 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  It's just part of a greater Microsoft strategy to get and keep the Microsoft brand in front of people. It's the same evil, different day.
  None of you have any proof of this. I don't mean to single you out here but come on. If your working knowledge of business strategies assumes that a behemoth of a company like MS has "one" strategy you need to check your working knowledge. A company like MS has multiple strategies for every business group and every market they service. If MS has shown us anything over the years it's that they are very non-committal when it comes to direct-to-consumer business strategies at the very least. It's actually one of their biggest weaknesses in the market (trying to be all things to all people) so to paint this picture of a grand MS scheme gives them too much credit. It's just not that simple.
  I for one will wait for proof or a memo or something about this before I go diving in to impugn their motives.
  
  --
  I don't know how many years on this Earth I got left. I'm going to get real weird with it. - Frank Reynolds
64. Re:and the qualifier is... by c6gunner · 2010-09-14 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with Wyatt Earp's sibling post. Why wouldn't Wikileaks be listed as a terrorist organization?
  Why wouldn't greenpeace? Why wouldn't the Salvation Army? Why wouldn't the Girl Guides?
  Rephrasing such a ludicrous suggestion in the form of a question doesn't make it any more legitimate. As I said, you two obviously have some serious mental-health issues. Either that or you're just trolling.
65. Re:and the qualifier is... by GameboyRMH · 2010-09-14 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  Why wouldn't greenpeace? Why wouldn't the Salvation Army? Why wouldn't the Girl Guides?
  None of those groups release classified US military info?
  I don't think Wikileaks really belongs on the list either, but I wouldn't be surprised if the US put them on their list.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 10:33 · Score: 0

did microsoft just do something good? I must be high!
Excellent by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 10:33 · Score: 0

That means the Pirate Party UK can get free copies of Windows?
But journalists too.. as in all bloggers?
1. Re:Excellent by uglyduckling · 2010-09-13 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  Only if they're in Russia.
2. Re:Excellent by Alphathon · 2010-09-13 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  Only if they're in Russia.
  Ummm, no
  From the New Your Times article:
  
  The policy could have repercussions beyond Russia because the company indicated that it would apply to other countries as well, though it did not identify them.
  From the IT World article:
  
  Microsoft announced it will issue a blanket software license to nonprofit groups and journalist groups outside the US
  
  Since when does "outside the US" translate to "only if they're in Russia"?
  While it may indeed only apply to Russia, there is at least implication that it does not and may apply to everywhere outside of the US.
3. Re:Excellent by tverbeek · 2010-09-13 15:53 · Score: 1
  
  Since when does "outside the US" translate to "only if they're in Russia"?
  Ever since President Adlai Stevenson lost the Cold War in 1955, silly!
  
  --
  http://alternatives.rzero.com/
4. Re:Excellent by uglyduckling · 2010-09-13 21:02 · Score: 1
  
  Actually the article strongly implies that this is a specific response to the Russian situation. It certainly doesn't imply that it's for all countries outside of the US.
5. Re:Excellent by tehcyder · 2010-09-13 23:53 · Score: 1
  
  But journalists too.. as in all bloggers?
  
  Setting up a blog makes you a journalist in the same way that writing "Hello World" in BASIC makes you a computer programmer.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
6. Re:Excellent by Alphathon · 2010-09-14 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  Just because it is a response to the situation in Russia does not mean or imply that Russia is the only place it will apply. Maybe it applies to all CIS countries, or everywhere that Microsoft deems a similar situation to Russia likely. Also, I didn't say it implied that it applies to all non-US countries, but that it implies that it may apply to all non-US countries.
  The New York Times article clearly states (no implication needed) that it doesn't only apply to Russia ("the company indicated that it would apply to other countries as well, though it did not identify them."), while the IT World article makes no implication that it is Russia-only and the part I quoted implies that it would apply worldwide outside of the US (although it's probably just poorly worded).
No price or freedom by ciaran_o_riordan · 2010-09-13 10:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm not criticising this move. It's the start of the right thing to do. But lets not forget that although the price will be zeroed, the NGO's will still not be able to see what the software is doing, will still not be able to change the software.
NGO's should use free software.

--
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
1. Re:No price or freedom by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-09-13 10:44 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Most opposition NGOs in Russia are routinely harassed by the government while trying to expose many cases of corruption and widespread violation of human rights. Some (albeit, thankfully, very few so far) are imprisoned, others are beaten by thugs who are then conveniently never found by police.
  The issue of "being able to change the software" simply doesn't enter into the picture - I mean, do you seriously think these folk have the time to submit kernel patches? For most of them, computer is just a tool to do what they think of as their civic duty, one among many other such tools.
2. Re:No price or freedom by antifoidulus · 2010-09-13 10:45 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Not to mention increased protection from prying eyes. If I was criticizing a government known for harassing its opponents I sure as shit wouldn't be using something as insecure as Windows.
  
  --
  Monstar L
3. Re:No price or freedom by shentino · 2010-09-13 10:50 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Which is precisely the reason you're automatically considered a terrorist if you *don't* use it.
4. Re:No price or freedom by Locutus · 2010-09-13 10:50 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  they should be using free software and with all the hoopla, there would be a big move to free software. Microsoft's move is not only gets them out of the publicity mess building but also curbs a very public discussion of moving off Microsoft software and onto free software. Well played Microsoft, well played.
  
  LoB
  
  --
  "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
5. Re:No price or freedom by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 10:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Not to mention increased protection from prying eyes. If I was criticizing a government known for harassing its opponents I sure as shit wouldn't be using something as insecure as Windows.
  Good call. Because there's absolutely no way in hell that the Russian government has people who could hack backdoors into open source, compile it, and surreptitiously install it onto rooted Linux systems.
6. Re:No price or freedom by AnonymousClown · 2010-09-13 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not criticising this move. It's the start of the right thing to do. But lets not forget that although the price will be zeroed, the NGO's will still not be able to see what the software is doing, will still not be able to change the software.
  NGO's should use free software.
  Considering what they have to go through, what MS might be doing under the covers is the least of their problems. And who says that they aren't already using F/OSS and the police are just using the piracy of MS software as an excuse?
  
  --
  RIP America
  July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
7. Re:No price or freedom by Mongoose+Disciple · 2010-09-13 11:08 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I know this isn't you, but some people care about getting shit done and have no interest in dicking around in the guts of their software.
  For most tasks, that includes me, and I've been a programmer since childhood.
8. Re:No price or freedom by icebraining · 2010-09-13 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  You mean, like all Russian students?
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
9. Re:No price or freedom by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 11:43 · Score: 0
  
  They don't give a shit about looking at the internals, they just want their stuff to work. Fuck off.
10. Re:No price or freedom by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 11:47 · Score: 0
  
  I rebuild from source and review every line before using my computer!
11. Re:No price or freedom by mobby_6kl · 2010-09-13 11:52 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe NGOs will start using free software when you stop using apostrophes to create plurals.
12. Re:No price or freedom by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 11:52 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Yes, but what compiler did you use?
13. Re:No price or freedom by westlake · 2010-09-13 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  But lets not forget that although the price will be zeroed, the NGO's will still not be able to see what the software is doing, will still not be able to change the software.
  Maybe they don't want to. Maybe they don't need to.
  Maybe the time and money isn't there.
  Maybe it matters more that an NGO's staff and volunteers have the software they know how to use and are comfortable in using.
  Maybe it's the the job that matters and not ideological purity or political correctness.
14. Re:No price or freedom by Score+Whore · 2010-09-13 11:56 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  But did you build your OS via tapping bits onto the SATA bus with a paperclip? Otherwise you have no idea what your OS is putting in there. See Ken Thompson Reflections on Trusting Trust.
15. Re:No price or freedom by maugle · 2010-09-13 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  It's not that they ever would dick around in the guts of their software, it's that they have the ability to if they ever really wanted/needed to. Say, if they suspected that something in the guts of the software was interfering with their ability to "get shit done" (a government backdoor, for example).
  
  More freedom is better than less, even if it most people never need to be use it.
16. Re:No price or freedom by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 12:11 · Score: 0
  
  i.e. the price for freedom is just too high. And that is okay. You don't need to justify it. Really. Some people, like me, don't give a shit about voting, because the time to put in the effort to know what is going on is too high, compared to the benefit you get out. Sure, you can tell me I NEED to vote, but screw them. Same difference.
17. Re:No price or freedom by antifoidulus · 2010-09-13 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  Good call. Because there's absolutely no way in hell that the Russian government has people who could hack backdoors into open source, compile it, and surreptitiously install it onto rooted Linux systems.
  
  Um, if you have root then what is the point of compiling and surreptitiously installing compromised code on the machine, YOU ALREADY HAVE FUCKING ROOT! It's no different than Windows(other than the fact that its harder to actually root a linux box, rooting windows is pretty trivial). I can compile and install any fucking kernel extension I want to do pretty much whatever I want. Writing kernel extensions for Windows(which in most situations is pretty much like changing the kernel, at least from a hackers perspective) isn't really that much different than writing them for Linux. That had to be the stupidest counterargument I have ever heard, and obviously you understand very little about computers.
  
  --
  Monstar L
18. Re:No price or freedom by turbidostato · 2010-09-13 12:21 · Score: 1
  
  "Um, if you have root then what is the point of compiling and surreptitiously installing compromised code on the machine, YOU ALREADY HAVE FUCKING ROOT!"
  The key word is "surreptitiously", as in you don't want them to know they are rooted.
19. Re:No price or freedom by internettoughguy · 2010-09-13 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  I know this isn't you, but some people care about getting shit done and have no interest in dicking around in the guts of their software.
  For most tasks, that includes me, and I've been a programmer since childhood.
  It's not an issue of "digging around the guts", it's simply that the software is more trustworthy, because the development process is transparent.
20. Re:No price or freedom by edjs · 2010-09-13 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  Free software won't help them with this particular issue. From what I've read the police we're reporting "finding" unlicensed MS software installed despite offices producing licenses. I suspect running a totally Free system won't be a good enough defence against that. This removed the MS license as an excuse to confiscate the computers; I have no doubts other excuses will be trotted out.
  What the NGOs should be doing is encrypting their data. Then, at least, the authorities don't get a free pass at the data leading to other people and organizations they should target next.
21. Re:No price or freedom by Locutus · 2010-09-13 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  I was talking about any of the orgs who were trying to be 100% compliant with Microsoft licenses yet still ended up on the receiving end of a big stick. Yes they can use what they want and what they "wanted" in this case got them in exactly the mess we're( some of us ) are talking about.
  
  LoB
  
  --
  "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
22. Re:No price or freedom by exomondo · 2010-09-13 12:57 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Root privileges are merely a means to an end. An end such as installing a keylogger, re-building the password manager to silently forward you any future stored passwords, etc...
  
  It's no different than Windows
  I think that's his point.
  
  (other than the fact that its harder to actually root a linux box, rooting windows is pretty trivial)
  In the old days yes, now not so much. It's a lot of social engineering these days.
23. Re:No price or freedom by oatworm · 2010-09-13 13:15 · Score: 1
  
  You fool - you never trust the SATA bus! You never know what's listening in!
24. Re:No price or freedom by luis_a_espinal · 2010-09-13 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not criticising this move. It's the start of the right thing to do. But lets not forget that although the price will be zeroed, the NGO's will still not be able to see what the software is doing, will still not be able to change the software.
  NGO's should use free software.
  Your logic is infallible.
25. Re:No price or freedom by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 13:20 · Score: 0
  
  It takes a certain degree of arrogance to recommend to others that they give away their products and services for free. Microsoft is neither a charity nor an instrument of US foreign policy.
  While Bill Gates is to be lauded for charitable works, a profit making corporation has an obligation to its shareholders. To put it bluntly I don't believe the the shareholder of Microsoft necessarily agree that gifting Russian groups is the most worthwhile charitable contribution Microsoft should make. In any case foreign aid and support of Russian dissent group is a governmental decision with for reaching consequences.
26. Re:No price or freedom by oatworm · 2010-09-13 13:24 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You're forgetting ability. There's a wide gulf between "there's something in the guts of the software interfering with our ability to 'get shit done'" and "I know where to find it and how to disable it".
  
  However, that's not what the story is about. Instead, foreign police forces didn't need a "government backdoor" - instead, they'd use an investigation into a potential technical legal violation (think of how Al Capone was ultimately convicted of tax evasion and you'll get the idea), ask MS to provide enough info to ostensibly check for it ("Hey, we think this org is using pirated software."/"Okay, here's what you'll need to know to check for that."), then raid all of the computers in said org, hold them long enough to disrupt operations and grab everything off of them, then be done with it. Honestly, you don't need root/local admin access when you can carry the boxes out of the office by hand. Now, MS' official policy when foreign law enforcement calls is to simply say, "No, they're not pirates - we give free licenses to all non-profits" and force law enforcement to come up with some other arcane law (of which there are always plenty) to apply against the org of their choice.
  
  It won't really affect anything, of course, but kudos to MS for not playing along.
27. Re:No price or freedom by RulerOf · 2010-09-13 13:28 · Score: 1
  
  Writing kernel extensions for Windows(which in most situations is pretty much like changing the kernel, at least from a hackers perspective) isn't really that much different than writing them for Linux.
  So what is the definition of a "kernel extension" then? I was under the impression that modifying the kernel in Windows is pretty much a no-no these days. I don't really know much about it, but I understood that antivirus apps used to operate by hooking the Windows kernel and post Vista SP2(?) that's not allowed anymore.
  
  Is a kernel extension the same concept, or are you speaking of kernel modifications that explicitly require recompiling the kernel itself? Aren't device drivers kernel extensions in this context?
  
  --
  Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
28. Re:No price or freedom by oatworm · 2010-09-13 13:28 · Score: 1
  
  Obligatory XKCD link.
  
  Encryption won't solve the problem - they'll just torture the information they need out of those that have it. It's far better to just encapsulate the knowledge, make sure that nobody knows enough to bring down the entire organization, and hope for the best.
29. Re:No price or freedom by ratboy666 · 2010-09-13 13:28 · Score: 1
  
  And, in response to the inevitable "there's just no time or will to use FOSS". Just use Fedora.
  The Fedora group cares about the software freedom, and integrates the whole thing for you into a working system. If you are an NGO, go ahead and contact them -- they may even be delighted to support you directly.
  
  --
  Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
30. Re:No price or freedom by shentino · 2010-09-13 13:41 · Score: 1
  
  Not really.
  It mostly applies in cases where you're suspected.
  The part that makes you a terrorist (sarcasm warning) is the part where your unusual operating system choice interferes with the investigative tools favored by the cops.
31. Re:No price or freedom by ciaran_o_riordan · 2010-09-13 13:42 · Score: 1
  
  Humorous, but pls lrn2grammar:
  http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/acronyms.html :-p :-) :smileynose)
  
  --
  Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
32. Re:No price or freedom by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 14:06 · Score: 0
  
  You trust the hardware itself? Tsk, tsk.
33. Re:No price or freedom by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 14:43 · Score: 0
  
  Providing documentation in a way acceptable by court that you have licenses for each of 1000s of open source software packages in an average Linux install is still more pain that is required under this default blanket licensing scheme.
34. Re:No price or freedom by hawkingradiation · 2010-09-13 15:19 · Score: 1
  
  No, no no. You have it all wrong. It is all about security. The computers will be given to a local, Russian Business Organization specializing in the protection of PC's from spyware and viruses. Once the computers are cleaned of harmful information^h^h^h^h^h^h I mean viruses, they will be returned back to the original owners. The entire process is transparent, and this Business Organization truly out for the small guy here, will not even reveal their secrets, lest they be used by someone with more nefarious intention against them. They are like the "Green Hornet" of the Internet and are not truly recognized for this service that they provide.
  
  --
  Society use your Sciences
35. Re:No price or freedom by TheSpoom · 2010-09-13 15:26 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I trust only the ABACUS I WHITTLED from a tree I GREW MYSELF!
  
  --
  It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
  - E. Debs
36. Re:No price or freedom by hawkingradiation · 2010-09-13 15:39 · Score: 1
  
  Personally, although it takes a lot of time, I like to review my compiler's source before it compiles a program, including that of the source of the compiler compiling the compiler from source. In the post 9/11 world, I believe that inspecting the Lex and YACC source is the only way that we can prevent al-Qaida from constructing compiler-compilers that will be free of textual images of the prophet Muhammad. In the spirit of the World Wide Web, I will provide you with the threat as a link, and leave you to decide whether this is really silly paranoia
  
  --
  Society use your Sciences
37. Re:No price or freedom by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 15:44 · Score: 0
  
  The issue of "being able to change the software" simply doesn't enter into the picture - I mean, do you seriously think these folk have the time to submit kernel patches?
  Strangely enough, it does matter. If someone is using open-source software, the software vendor can mess around with them up to the point that it's easier to switch to a vendor supplying another version of the same open-source software. (For example, switching to a different Linux distribution, or just switching which package repository they're using.) If someone is using proprietary software, the vendor can mess around with them up to the point that it's easier to switch to using a completely different software suite, including the costs of retraining and migrating all their data over to the new system. The second of these conditions is a rather higher threshold - so with non-free software, you're more vulnerable to being messed around, regardless of whether you've even heard of "source code".
38. Re:No price or freedom by tverbeek · 2010-09-13 16:05 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You know the scenes in WWII movies (e.g. Casablanca) where the resistance or their allies provide bogus "authorization" papers to the Good Guys so they can evade arrest by the Nazis? That's kinda what MS is doing here. They're trying to be non-evil; give them credit for it.
  
  --
  http://alternatives.rzero.com/
39. Re:No price or freedom by uvajed_ekil · 2010-09-13 18:00 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Good call. Because there's absolutely no way in hell that the Russian government has people who could hack backdoors into open source, compile it, and surreptitiously install it onto rooted Linux systems.
  
  I agree with this: Russian law enforcement and government folks don't need copyright laws and Microsoft to hack or harass dissenters. But I'll go further: they don't generally need back doors at all, because they have no problem with kicking down the front door and dragging citizens out into the street, or simply shooting people in the head. Seriously, they act outside the law and do what they think needs to be done, without the constraints they we in the West are used to. Capitalist corruption and totalitarianism have taken over for the Leninist corruption and totalitarianism that we grew up reading about.
  
  Got money in Russia, you can buy influence and protection. Question the corruption or try to change the status quo, you'll find yourself in a world of pain and trouble, if you keep breathing that is. The situation may not typically be as bloody as the drug-infused battlegrounds in Mexico that we in the US keep reading about, but you'd better know what you're doing if you challenge any level of government in Russia.
  
  --
  This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
40. Re:No price or freedom by tepples · 2010-09-13 18:06 · Score: 1
  
  See Ken Thompson Reflections on Trusting Trust.
  
  Now that there are multiple independent implementations of a C compiler, such as Clang for LLVM, TCC, and GCC, the trusting trust attack can be defeated with a compile farm.
41. Re:No price or freedom by iiiears · 2010-09-13 18:59 · Score: 1
  
  @ciaran_o_riordan
  I agree using stolen software isn't the right answer with free and open alternatives available. Honestly you are preaching to choir here. Be brave dampen your doubts and speak well about Microsoft for this.. Really..
  
  --
  15TW = 15,000 Nuclear Reactors. (Approx. one accident a month.)
42. Re:No price or freedom by taylorius · 2010-09-13 21:09 · Score: 1
  
  Well, let's hope it doesn't get rooted! *rimshot*
  Aaathankyouverymuch...
43. Re:No price or freedom by dhavleak · 2010-09-13 22:12 · Score: 1
  
  NGO's will still not be able to see what the software is doing, will still not be able to change the software.
  If that is a requirement for the work they do, they will chose something different. Is this a requirement for all NGOs?
  
  NGO's should use free software.
  NGOs (everyone) should use whatever software works for them and fits their budgets and philosophy. To each their own.
44. Re:No price or freedom by tehcyder · 2010-09-13 23:57 · Score: 1
  
  But lets not forget that although the price will be zeroed, the NGO's will still not be able to see what the software is doing, will still not be able to change the software.
  
  It's possible that they have other more pressing concerns than what software they're using, for instance being thrown into jail or just shot for doing their jobs.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
45. Re:No price or freedom by ciaran_o_riordan · 2010-09-14 00:11 · Score: 1
  
  And you see no connection between the software they use and their ability to control their exposure?
  Some actions are publicly visible for unavoidable reasons (publishing articles). Other actions such as talking to dissidents, talking to leaks, talking to whistle blowers, collecting data, have to be done as secretly as possible.
  If they use proprietary software, they just have to trust the software developers to do a good job and to not collaborate with the government. Sound smart?
  
  --
  Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
46. Re:No price or freedom by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-14 01:16 · Score: 0
  
  Thanks for posting that, as I'd not read that before. I knew things like that were possible, but he spells it out very nicely. Thanks again!
47. Re:No price or freedom by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-14 01:47 · Score: 0
  
  Not to mention increased protection from prying eyes. If I was criticizing a government known for harassing its opponents I sure as shit wouldn't be using something as insecure as Windows.
  Of course, you'd compile all your own binaries from source code you've personally scoured line for line, using a compiler you wrote in machine code, right?
48. Re:No price or freedom by Mongoose+Disciple · 2010-09-14 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  It's not that they ever would dick around in the guts of their software, it's that they have the ability to if they ever really wanted/needed to ... as long as they're software developers with nothing more important to do. Who also have enough experience in the particular area of specialty that the software in question covers to really understand what's going on, or enough spare time to learn.
  At some point idealogy has to at least wave politely at pragmatism.
49. Re:No price or freedom by ImprovOmega · 2010-09-14 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  You're doing it wrong. It's supposed to be:
  Well, let's hope it doesn't get...
  *puts on sunglasses*
  ...rooted.
  YEEEAHHHHHHHHHH
50. Re:No price or freedom by Locutus · 2010-09-14 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  when the FSF starts going after companies like the BSA goes after companies regarding Microsoft software, then that'll need to be managed. Until then, it's all about Microsoft software licenses baby and showing you are NOT running Microsoft software will shut out the BSA.
  
  And I don't think the FSF or anyone else for that matter is going to force you to prove all your OSS licenses are being used properly. After all, most all of them allow you to use and modify for internal use without issue.
  
  LoB
  
  --
  "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
It's a trap by wampus · 2010-09-13 10:34 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Well, inb4 it's a trap anyway.
So let me get this straight... by Pikoro · 2010-09-13 10:34 · Score: 3, Funny

In soviet russia, software licenses you?

--
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
1. Re:So let me get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 10:39 · Score: 0
  
  In soviet russia, software licenses you?
  In post-Soviet Russia, joke is older than you!
2. Re:So let me get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 10:47 · Score: 0
  
  In soviet russia, software licenses you?
  No. This is an entirely inaccurate portayal of the situation at hand.
3. Re:So let me get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 11:13 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  In Soviet Russia, Microsoft protects you from government.
4. Re:So let me get this straight... by a_n_d_e_r_s · 2010-09-13 17:32 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, aint it nice of Microsoft to offer their software for free for Al Qaida.
  Al Qaida is a non-US NGO.
  
  --
  Just saying it like it are.
It works for them... by Penguinisto · 2010-09-13 10:34 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I suspect that come next quarter, Microsoft will happily re-interpret this as a massive increase in "sales" of it's Windows 7 licenses, thereby giving its marketing department (and shill squadrons) something to crow about.
It also gives them a means to crow about how they 'cracked down' on piracy, and etc.
(to top that off, I'm sure there's a massive tax write-off in there somewhere as well).
All in all, doing this looks like the best solution for 'em.

--
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
1. Re:It works for them... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 10:39 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  So, what you're saying is, this is a win-win scenario for both Microsoft and non-US NGOs. Don't they teach win-win being a wonderful thing at school?
2. Re:It works for them... by BradleyUffner · 2010-09-13 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  So, what you're saying is, this is a win-win scenario for both Microsoft and non-US NGOs. Don't they teach win-win being a wonderful thing at school?
  You are thinking of the elusive "win-win-win.....win"
3. Re:It works for them... by AHuxley · 2010-09-13 11:45 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  MS gets a free sales bump to feel good organizations. Organizations get free software, the FSB gets to slide in all the quality malware they like.
  Young campaigners are exposed to MS products telling their friends and family ... win win win for all. The CIA gets a longer list of front organizations and useful idiots to incubate for 'color revolutions'.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Thanks MS - First post I think! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 10:35 · Score: 0

wow! Thanks MS for helping put another nail in OSX and Linux Desktop!
1. Re:Thanks MS - First post I think! by pandrijeczko · 2010-09-13 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  I can't speak for the OS X people but this has precisely *ZERO* effect on Linux.
  Yes, there are a few zealots wherever you go but most people use Linux because it does what they need an OS to do & a policy change from Microsoft isn't going to change that.
  There is *NO* war between Linux & Windows but as long as there are people out there saying that Linux isn't ready for the desktop, then there will be some groups of developers trying to make it more suitable for those people.
  
  --
  Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
2. Re:Thanks MS - First post I think! by RulerOf · 2010-09-13 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  most people use Linux because it does what they need an OS to do
  
  Very true. I find Windows to be the best (and most aesthetically appealing -- aero is some good stuff :P) environment for the majority of tasks that I do. For manipulating raw disk images though, the tools available for Windows pale in comparison to those on Linux. I keep that Ubuntu VM around for the inverse of the reasons that the Linux zealots keep the XP VM on their desktops ;-)
  
  --
  Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
3. Re:Thanks MS - First post I think! by pandrijeczko · 2010-09-13 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  I use Linux most of the time (my job even centres around it) but I quite like XP and have a few games and apps running on it that I either can't run or run well in Linux.
  Both have their strengths & weaknesses, but neither are religious icons - just tools to get a job done.
  
  --
  Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
4. Re:Thanks MS - First post I think! by DavidRawling · 2010-09-13 13:34 · Score: 1
  
  What the hell is this? Rational thought on Slashdot? Dammit man what are you DOING!? You know we're supposed to push Linux as the be-all and end-all of software in the Universe - whether it runs your applications or not, whether it has drivers or not, whether you like it or not. It's FREE man!
  It's simple, OK? If the apps you want don't work, you must find or write the replacement (even if the only programming you've ever done was managing to set the clock on your VCR to 1am. Once. And now the only way you can get the time right is to wait to reset it at one in the morning. If there are no drivers for your hardware, you bought the wrong hardware and it's YOUR FAULT we don't have all the hardware manufacturers producing only open-source drivers. Go buy replacement hardware now (note, we won't actually make it easy for you to tell if there are drivers for a Netcomm wireless adapter, you should KNOW it's a UCom 32k98ga rev 3 not a rev 4).
  Hmmm. More ranty than I planned. Whatever.
5. Re:Thanks MS - First post I think! by pandrijeczko · 2010-09-13 18:38 · Score: 1
  
  Go buy replacement hardware now (note, we won't actually make it easy for you to tell if there are drivers for a Netcomm wireless adapter, you should KNOW it's a UCom 32k98ga rev 3 not a rev 4).
  Like I said, they both have their strengths and weaknesses. I'm a 15-year Linux veteran but even I had to spend a good few hours working out what driver to use for the wireless on a HP laptop I bought about 2 years ago.
  No one said it was perfect! :-)
  
  --
  Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
This is great. by cfalcon · 2010-09-13 10:38 · Score: 1, Insightful

I'm really glad to see this.
hmm... by Malenx · 2010-09-13 10:40 · Score: 1

This is one move I would never have suspected Microsoft to take. It will be interesting, but it only lasts until 2012. It's hard to believe they would extend it longer.
I wonder how many Russians are going to scramble for non-profit status.
1. Re:hmm... by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-09-13 10:47 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It will be interesting, but it only lasts until 2012. It's hard to believe they would extend it longer.
  Apparently it's an interim measure while NGOs learn that they can take part in an existing program involving "donation" of software to non-profits. End result is effectively the same, as you get free licenses, but donations are to a specific org, whereas this is meant to be a blanket license to shield everyone from abuse right here and now.
2. Re:hmm... by pandrijeczko · 2010-09-13 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, there's another way to look at this.
  If current users of pirated MS software now have to register for a free software license that lasts until 2012, then in 2012 MS will be able to use those registration details to go back and ask them if they've now purchased a valid license for their software.
  Not that I'm an MS fan but people who pirate software these days when there are usually very good legally free alternatives are hypocrites who deserve all they get.
  
  --
  Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
3. Re:hmm... by Anpheus · 2010-09-13 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  They won't have to register though, what will happen is they will simply say to that they are fully licensed until 2012.
  In the meantime, they promote to said organizations through other channels the donation-based options for getting Microsoft software. That is, free (as in beer) software.
4. Re:hmm... by pandrijeczko · 2010-09-13 11:38 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  They won't have to register though, what will happen is they will simply say to that they are fully licensed until 2012.
  Okay, point taken on that. But then a pirate user who suddenly becomes legal will probably start using things like Automatic Updates for the convenience, and then becomes visible, to a degree, to Microsoft.
  FWIW, I'm mostly Linux guy so it doesn't bother me either way - but I know enough about MS to know they don't give anything away free without there being some alterior motive.
  
  --
  Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
5. Re:hmm... by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-09-13 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  I know enough about MS to know they don't give anything away free without there being some alterior motive.
  It suffices to know how any major corporation behaves in that regard, MS is no different. They are, by definition, money-making machines.
  And the "ulterior motive" - how about good PR; or damage control for existing bad PR (which, ultimately, reflects on sales)?
  Coincidentally, it's why it's always worth pointing it out when such things happen. Reputation is also a resource, and corporations will spend money doing damage control when that resource is threatened. And, more often than not, said damage control means that money will be spent in such a way that will benefit the commons.
6. Re:hmm... by Bing+Tsher+E · 2010-09-13 12:31 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Not that I'm an MS fan but people who pirate software these days when there are usually very good legally free alternatives are hypocrites who deserve all they get.
  What makes them hypocritical? To be hypocritical they'd have to start their own software company and loudly complain when other people pirated their product.
7. Re:hmm... by Anpheus · 2010-09-14 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  Of course they give away (or nearly give away) software to charities/non-profits with an ulterior motive. If people learn to use and work best with Microsoft stuff there, then if they move to the for-profit sector that will be what they're familiar with.
  The alternative though is even sillier than suggesting they have some malicious motive for giving away software. That is, would you say that Microsoft *should* charge schools, NGOs and charities the same as businesses? I mean, really?
Tax breaks by Darkness404 · 2010-09-13 10:40 · Score: 0, Troll

This is going to give MS some serious tax breaks because they can "donate" all the software they want because software is infinite.

And the TFA gets something wrong.

The blanket license for software builds on a software-donation program Microsoft already has, Smith said. While the company has donated US $390 million worth of software to NGOs in the past year, many nonprofits aren't aware of the program, he wrote. The new blanket license will last until 2012, and Microsoft hopes to move any interested NGOs to the existing software donation program by then, he said.

MS didn't donate anything and they shouldn't get tax breaks (like the likely will) for donating non-existent products. So in other words MS can do nothing and rack up massive tax deductions for doing something that doesn't leave them with anything less.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
1. Re:Tax breaks by blagder · 2010-09-13 11:16 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I think you are misinterpreting that paragraph; and thus not giving Microsoft their due credit.
  It is saying that Microsoft already does run a ‘donation’ program to NGOs that likely does allow them tax deductions at no cost. But that’s not what this is. By instantly creating a license that any NGO can use for free; they cannot claim a deduction. For a deduction, they would have to get the NGO/journalist to go through specific channels so that they could document the ‘donation’. And that of course if why they want to move people to their donation program.
  This is talked about in a bit more detail in the Microsoft blog entry that announced it. I would expect this to make it a bit more difficult to get NGOs to use their donation program since the motivation for jumping through the hooks is less.
  This is a fantastic program and Microsoft should be commended for it. Even on Slashdot.
  Now, getting deductions for software (or other IP) donations in general is ridiculous and something that governments should reconsider. Any business deduction where they can control the value of the donation by their pricing is somewhat shady. But this license does not seem to be taking advantage of that.
What about here? by DaMattster · 2010-09-13 10:40 · Score: -1, Offtopic

What about here at home in the U.S.? If Microsoft wants to protect NGO non-profit's from nefarious actions they should not be so hypocritical as to do it abroad only. There are plenty of dissident non-profit organizations in the U.S. that are subject to nefarious actions by law enforcement all of the time. There are pro-marijuana groups that may be doing nothing illegal in the limelight by producing leaflets and holding rallies that are subject to the scrutiny of law enforcement. In fact, it isn't a crime to dissent in the US. Ah, but once again, everything is profit and loss motivated. Microsoft would be concerned about losing its lucrative government contracts and some of its contracts with business that stands to lose money if certain dissident groups got their way.
1. Re:What about here? by Locke2005 · 2010-09-13 10:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Can you cite evidence of any "dissident" groups in the US that have been busted for software piracy? This is a case of Microsoft trying to "do the right thing", they should be applauded for their efforts, not criticized.
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
2. Re:What about here? by pandrijeczko · 2010-09-13 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  There are pro-marijuana groups that may be doing nothing illegal in the limelight by producing leaflets and holding rallies that are subject to the scrutiny of law enforcement.
  That's probably an extreme example because I doubt any corporation would want any of their products associated with a pro-marijuana group as it would be bad for their image - branding is everything these days.
  
  --
  Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
3. Re:What about here? by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-09-13 10:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  So far as my limited understanding of US copyright law goes, the government cannot sue someone for copyright infringement on behalf of the rights owner; the latter actually has to initiate the process. In Russia (and a few other places), this is not the case - copyright infringement (even small-scale) is a criminal matter, and prosecuted as such by the state, with or without cooperation from the rights owner. This is what made possible the abuse in this particular case. It's actually hinted at in TFS:
  The law in Russia (and many other countries) requires that one must provide truthful information about the facts in response to a subpoena or other judicial process. With this new software license, we effectively change the factual situation at hand.
  The situation before was like this: say, Russian police gets a tip from "above" to harass a particular NGO. They raid the offices on some premise (it's not US, so there are many ways to legitimize such a raid) and confiscate a bunch of PCs. They then subpoena MS to testify whether software on those PCs, in which MS holds copyrights, is legitimately owned or copyright-infringing. Chances are high that at least a few boxes would have something unlicensed on them - and if they don't, you can always plant it there (rumor it is that it's precisely what they did in the case in question), so MS says "yes, some of that is not licensed". Police then takes it to state prosecutor which uses it as the grounds for the copyright infringement case.
  The whole point of this blanket license is so that, if govt tries that trick again in the future, MS can say that all software in question is legally used, without even having to look at it. Hence there would be no grounds for a lawsuit.
  Though something tells me that they'll just start looking for pirated Photoshop etc from now on.
4. Re:What about here? by SnarfQuest · 2010-09-13 11:30 · Score: 0
  
  What about a non-profit organization, that just happens to to all the computer related operations of GM? Seems that there are a lot of ways for this to be abused.
  
  --
  Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
5. Re:What about here? by dynamo · 2010-09-13 12:24 · Score: 1
  
  Mod parent up, it's nowhere near flamebait. WTF!
6. Re:What about here? by exomondo · 2010-09-13 16:59 · Score: 1
  
  If Microsoft wants to protect NGO non-profit's from nefarious actions they should not be so hypocritical as to do it abroad only.
  How is that hypocritical?
7. Re:What about here? by Stephen+Samuel · 2010-09-14 00:03 · Score: 1
  
  The whole point of this blanket license is so that, if govt tries that trick again in the future, MS can say that all software in question is legally used, without even having to look at it. Hence there would be no grounds for a lawsuit.
  Though something tells me that they'll just start looking for pirated Photoshop etc from now on.
  Actually, What it seems like they did was that they went to the local MS lawyer and said "There's illegal software on this computer ... RIGHT?
  at which point the MS lawyer either blindly says that it's illegal or (at best) prevaricates. 4-8 months later, if the organization manages to prove that everything is legal, they will hopefully get their machines back.
  This was easy to do in the past because "everybody knows" that everybody runs windows, and few people in Russia have legal licenses. Now, even if they claim that it's an illegal copy of photoshop, they now have to actually look at the machine first -- or plant the software, which is even more work....
  And some people, by now, hopefully know to download GIMP, if they want to stay one step ahead of (corrupt) law enforcement.
  
  --
  Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
8. Re:What about here? by tehcyder · 2010-09-14 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  The thing is, surely, that if they are in a position to raid offices and confiscate computers, it's irrelevant whether they actually find any unlicensed software there or not. They've still had access to all that juicy confidential information, names and addresses of contacts, whatever, never mind the fact that they can have installed some monitoring/bugging software on the machines.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
9. Re:What about here? by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-09-14 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  They aren't interested in monitoring NGOs - the latter don't exactly work in secret, anyway. Besides, all communications in Russia are effectively tapped by default anyway, there just needs to be someone to tune in (google for SORM-2). What they want is to "make an example" on one hand, and prevent dissemination of information on another.
10. Re:What about here? by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-09-14 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  What about here at home in the U.S.?
  I honestly don't know why you got modded down, because, regardless of any speculation, your question is perfectly valid. I did some digging around, and turns out that US NGOs are already eligible for some free licenses from MS. Specifically, Win7 and Office Live (i.e. the web version, not the desktop one) Small Business is on the list as free. Some other stuff, including Win2008 Server and Office 2010, is discounted, though I don't know by how much.
  The difference with this case is that every organization has to apply for the license individually - it's not blanket. However, the eventual goal is to also move to the same model in Russia (it's all in place already, it's just that many organizations don't even know that they're eligible) - that's why the blanket license is only until 2012, to provide efficient short-term protection in the meantime.
Weird terminology by Lord+Lode · 2010-09-13 10:47 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Why do Slashdot articles sometimes use such weird terminology? Am I supposed to know what a "blanket software license" is? And a search on the internet has mainly articles with the title "Microsoft to Issue Blanket License" as result.
1. Re:Weird terminology by Culture20 · 2010-09-13 10:56 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Am I supposed to know what a "blanket software license" is?
  If American English is your primary language, yes.
  If not, know that here in America, we license our electric blanket software (the programs that tell a blanket when its getting too hot). Sure, some hip nerds install Linux on theirs so they can literally feel the system load, but most people just think of electric blankets as appliances.
2. Re:Weird terminology by xenapan · 2010-09-13 10:57 · Score: 0
  
  Microsoft just wants you to associate them with soft blankets.
  They also want tax deductions from governments for setting up this blanket license (that no one will qualify for) e.g. Registered as a non-profit with microsoft AND recognized by the US government as ____ AND has less than 3 people in your organisation but more than 1! :p
  Then they can say oh we donated 5 bajeeeellion dollars worth of software to nonprofits! (Except no one qualified for them.) Can I has tax reductions?
  
  --
  insert funny sig here
3. Re:Weird terminology by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 11:01 · Score: 0
  
  Why do Slashdot articles sometimes use such weird terminology? Am I supposed to know what a "blanket software license" is?
  
  "Blanket X" is a relatively common phrase in business, where the "blanket" means "covering (almost) everything". See blanket loan and blanket order.
4. Re:Weird terminology by RzUpAnmsCwrds · 2010-09-13 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  "Blanket license" is a pretty common term - it means that the license applies to everyone in the class, regardless of whether or not they have signed a specific agreement with Microsoft.
5. Re:Weird terminology by uvajed_ekil · 2010-09-13 18:17 · Score: 1
  
  Why do Slashdot articles sometimes use such weird terminology? Am I supposed to know what a "blanket software license" is?
  
  I KNOW!!!! I meen, slashdot is always uzing crazy jargon that is impossible to interpret, like "internet" (WTF iz that???), GPL, copyright, and software (why is it soft? Is it out of shape, rotten, or overcooked?). Come on slashdot, u needz to use more one-silable words, PLZ!!! I spendz all my time looking up "slashwordz", like Linnux, jedi, and geek, just too name afew. lol i can haz nerd dictionary now? Maybe FOX news and simple talk iz better for some of uz, and tell us what to think so we not have to spend time thinking. Going back to MTV now cyal8r
  
  --
  This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
Linux and BSD ... by Skapare · 2010-09-13 10:54 · Score: 0, Offtopic

... need to do the same. Oh wait, they already have.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
1. Re:Linux and BSD ... by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-09-13 10:59 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The irony is that you can still end up in court for running Linux on PCs without "licenses", because the police don't understand it, and will only take those shiny holographic stickers as a proof that your software is "licensed". It's boneheaded, but some Russian Linux distribution companies have since started selling special stickers for Linux just for this purpose.
2. Re:Linux and BSD ... by blair1q · 2010-09-13 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  Don't Linux users already have all sorts of paraphernalia to celebrate their iconoclastic nature?
  Who's going to notice another sticker in that mess?
3. Re:Linux and BSD ... by tehcyder · 2010-09-14 00:46 · Score: 1
  
  So you've got this terrifying police-gangster state, but they're prepared to let you off because you've got a cute penguin sticker on your laptop?
  
  Hmmmm.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
4. Re:Linux and BSD ... by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-09-14 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  If they want to nail you as a police state, they will of course find some other reason. But in most cases it's not about political persecution from above, but simply the attempt to coerce into paying bribes to those directly involved in the investigation. In the latter case, they don't have the entire state apparatus suppoting them, so it's still quite possible to get out of trouble like that.
No. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 10:56 · Score: 1, Insightful

THEY, should be using whatever THEY want, not what YOU want. Attitudes like yours are what start Crusades, jihads, and pogroms. Unlike the instigators of those events, you're probably too pussy to put your money where your fist is, so in the end YOU are harmless.
1. Re:No. by jedidiah · 2010-09-13 11:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Nope. Attitudes like ours is what started the American and French revolutions.
  If you are being abused by the corporate aristocracy then perhaps it's time to overthrow the aristocracy.
  You don't even have to believe in the whole "software freedom" thing to realize that the whole software license management thing is a huge burden and bother.
  Being an accidental pirate as a corporation is much like being in violation of some obscure subtle law that most people (including actual cops) wouldn't recognize as a "federal offense".
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
2. Re:No. by Bing+Tsher+E · 2010-09-13 12:28 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Nope. Attitudes like ours is what started the American and French revolutions.
  The French Revolution rapidly degenerated. It got really, really stinky. The American Revolution wasn't really a revolution. More of an anti-colonial thing.
3. Re:No. by DAldredge · 2010-09-13 13:08 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I would respond but my copy of Windows Server is holding my family hostage.
4. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 18:55 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  But I'm not being abused by "the corporate aristocracy". I use what I use because I WANT to use it.
5. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 22:44 · Score: 0
  
  While it's possible this is true, it's more likely that it's a classic example of cognitive dissonance. You probably don't actually WANT to pay through the nose for software with incredibly restrictive license terms, but you have done so and therefore you justify it to yourself by convincing yourself that you gain sufficient benefit from the software for it to be useful.
  Before the American Revolution, many colonists did not think they were being abused by the British. Before the French Revolution, many peasants would have told you they were quite content with their miserable lives. Before the Civil War, many African Americans would have told you with a straight face that picking cotton for rich white men was their rightful place in the world. And today, many Windows users cling to the notion that it would be literally impossible for them ever to use anything else. People are very good at forgetting what "freedom" means, in cases where escaping from slavery would require any effort or risk on their part.
6. Re:No. by tehcyder · 2010-09-14 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  You don't even have to believe in the whole "software freedom" thing to realize that the whole software license management thing is a huge burden and bother.
  
  Maybe, but it's hardly the stuff that causes revolutions.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
7. Re:No. by Locutus · 2010-09-15 15:04 · Score: 1
  
  yes and they still picked Windows so how well did that work out for them? They tried to play by Microsoft's rules and be legal but they still got bashed and slapped around with legal docs and such. This was all because they were still using Microsoft software and Microsoft helped bitch-slap them.
  
  Again, they should have used free software and they would not have been in this mess. And do you really think they absolutely have to run Windows? They can pick it but watch the back of your head, cause it's still gonna good chance of getting slapped.
  
  LoB
  
  --
  "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
never trust Russians by bball99 · 2010-09-13 11:02 · Score: 1

ever!
Ah fuck! by AnonymousClown · 2010-09-13 11:04 · Score: 5, Funny

I wish I could delete the above comment. I thought I was replying someone else here on Digg.
Weird shit has been happening to me since I started taking Ambien!

--
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
1. Re:Ah fuck! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 11:45 · Score: 0
  
  Mindfuck of the day!
Blanket License? by imakemusic · 2010-09-13 11:06 · Score: 1

I didn't realise you needed a license to own a blanket.
How does Linus feel about this?

--
Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
1. Re:Blanket License? by zill · 2010-09-13 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  Penguins don't need blankets.
  
  Nor do daemons.
2. Re:Blanket License? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 11:18 · Score: 0
  
  I imagine Linus doesn't support the use of blankets, as you can't arbitrarily modify them as you can with free and open-stitched quilts.
3. Re:Blanket License? by imakemusic · 2010-09-13 11:48 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  No, no. The other Linus.
  
  --
  Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
and the qualifier is... the F_CKING GOVERNMENT! by Lead+Butthead · 2010-09-13 11:12 · Score: 1, Redundant

The local government decides what organization "qualifies" for exemption, as M$ must "obey local laws."
Wanna guess what organization will NOT be granted the exemption?

--
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
1. Re:and the qualifier is... the F_CKING GOVERNMENT! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 12:29 · Score: 0
  
  So then you believe that copyright law is an offense that the government should have control over? What if I want to give something away that is copyrighted by me? The government should have the right to prosecute the people I give my copyrighted work to? Doesn't that mean that I don't really have control over my work anymore once it's copyrighted? Effectively, that just means that the government decides what my copyrighted work can be used for, not me, the owner of the copyright. It means if you copyright your work, it has an opposite effect. You no longer own it, but the government does. You'd be better off not even copyrighting something, and retaining the right to do whatever you wanted with it, under such a system. That's sort of the idea behind the ACTA travesty. It transfers control over copyright into government hands. Even if you couldn't give a toss if people "pirate" your IP, the government will throw the book at them regardless, without your permission or will to do so. That's utter madness! ACTA and any thing such as that will merely break copyright beyond recognition. It'll compeltely negate any reason to copyright your work, as you suddenly lose control over what can be done with it.
  I'm not a big fan of Microsoft, but this little bit surprised me (looking for some good PR, is what I'm thinking). Do you really think the government has the right to prosecute someone for using a copyright with the full permission of the copyright holder? That's pretty bizzarre.
2. Re:and the qualifier is... the F_CKING GOVERNMENT! by Dachannien · 2010-09-13 14:09 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Huh? If Microsoft is granting the license, how are they not in complete control over what entities qualify?
Microsoft treats non-profits very well by dave562 · 2010-09-13 11:14 · Score: 5, Informative

I used to work for a 501c3 non-profit and we got ridiculously good deals on Microsoft licensing. Everything from server licenses, to Office suite, Exchange and the whole Back Office line of products (SQL, Sharepoint, etc). I know that our Office licenses (for the Professional edition) were in the neighborhood of $30 a piece. That included a provision that allowed the users to have a copy of the program on their home computer as well.
1. Re:Microsoft treats non-profits very well by slashbaby · 2010-09-13 11:59 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Second this.
  I work for the Canadian branch of an international NGO, and MS almost throws software at us - we recently were donated $50 000 MSRP of software from MS. We paid $2300 in "administration fees" - which pay for two years of Software Assurance, downloads, customer service, tech support, etc.
  Most software companies are generous to registered NGOs.
  We do use *nix for many things, most of our network infrastructure is *nix. It just makes sense. But for the users, who know Office and Windows, we can't justify the lost time and training in switching to a something else when there is next to no price benefit - our software cost per workstation is ~$50 every 4 years.
  I do feel bad for being a MS propagation machine, but they do make it pretty darn easy.
So how does one qualify? by brianary · 2010-09-13 11:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

Which organizations? How will Microsoft define "journalist"? Will bloggers qualify? Does the journalist, the publication, and/or the group need to be outside the US?
Will they get a license key and support?

"Whatever the circumstances of the particular cases the New York Times described, we want to be clear that we unequivocally abhor any attempt to leverage intellectual property rights to stifle political advocacy or pursue improper personal gain."
So very naive. Do they think they are getting IP enforcement externalities for free?
1. Re:So how does one qualify? by Steve+Hamlin · 2010-09-13 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  You're going too far - MS doesn't need to define who is covered, and don't need to provide license keys or support, they simply need to be able to liberally grant requesting NGOs / any other person licenses when they are politically harassed using license non-compliance as a reason. If and only if volume becomes a problem do they need better processes & policies.
  It's forgoing minimum incremental revenue in the pursuit of good corporate citizenship (apparently, and in this particular instance).
  "So very naive. Do they think they are getting IP enforcement externalities for free?"
  No, but they are solving / preventing one minor externality right now - so why complain that they haven't also solved all the world's IP problems? This was the right response to a specific set of circumstances.
2. Re:So how does one qualify? by brianary · 2010-09-13 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not "going too far" in just trying to determine who this applies to!
  I wasn't complaining that they haven't solved IP "problems". I was pointing out that they've made a deal with the devil to get tough, criminal enforcement.
NGOs should change to Linux by bdwoolman · 2010-09-13 11:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

I have argued that NGOs should change to Linux to avoid this very vulnerability. Some have even done so at my suggestion. I suspect at root that with this move Microsoft is parrying this very trend. And looking good while doing so. Of course NGOs should still use Linux for many reasons. Especially since much of the pirate software on their boxes is not MS and this still leaves them vulnerable. Most work done by NGOs can be accomplished by FOSS. Linux and NGOs are a natural fit.
Of course a bully needs only the weakest excuse so the official harassment will continue despite whatever OS or resources are used.

--
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
1. Re:NGOs should change to Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 18:37 · Score: 0
  
  Switching to Linux or getting a blanket license for MS software won't help much if they really want to raid your organization: they can just pretend to be looking for pirated music and videos or for unlicensed software of any other company.
Educational institutions too by Sycraft-fu · 2010-09-13 11:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

For instructional use, they give us software for free. We decided to just go and get their software assurance pack (more or less a site license for their software for any use) and it is extremely cheap on a yearly basis. Students get massive discounts, and the get to keep the license when they leave and use it for any purpose, including for profit.
MS and Adobe are actually two of the best companies for cutting educational institutions a break. Some of the engineering companies... Well they are assholes :P.
1. Re:Educational institutions too by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 11:56 · Score: 0
  
  Isn't Google Apps free for education? I'd have to check again, it's been about a year.
2. Re:Educational institutions too by zmaragdus · 2010-09-13 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  Some of the engineering companies... Well they are assholes :P.
  {cough}...Matlab...{cough}...Labview...{cough}
  Ooof. Excuse me.
  (Though if you're willing to forego Simulink, Octave is a good alternative to Matlab.)
  
  --
  (((dB)))
3. Re:Educational institutions too by skogs · 2010-09-14 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  It isn't really a free gift that you are getting. You are taking the discounted 'friend' rate first hit of drugs. They see it to their advantage to give cheap licenses to educational institutions specifically so that they control the market via training and expectations. If people have spent 4-8 years in college level coursework, and another few in secondary school prior to that using Microsoft Office products...chances are they won't even think twice about buying it for their business or personal use at a later date.
  People have no idea what software is on thier computers or even that there are competing office suites. They have expectations, and this expectation has been fed by cheap licensing to strategic market segments that will later trigger purchases. Even non-profits and NGOs, they do business with other people outside of their organizations, and when trading documents they expect it to just plain work all the time...this leads the occasional person that wouldn't have otherwise bought Office to purchase it.
  This isn't a free gift. This is a reputation saver, and continues their effort to sweeten the pod of the underprivileged so that they will generate more sales in those that can pay exhorbitant fees for software.
  
  --
  Who is this that even the wind and the waves obey Him? Surely this computer must submit also!
4. Re:Educational institutions too by Sycraft-fu · 2010-09-14 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  Ya we can't go with anything else because we do need Simulink and also some of the other toolboxes. As a practical matter we'd like to use Matlab anyhow, since that's what industry uses. We try very hard to teach students on the actual tools they use in the industry since it makes them more employable and also why not learn practical skills as well as theory at the same time.
5. Re:Educational institutions too by zmaragdus · 2010-09-15 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  Surprisingly, I've found more Labview than Matlab out in the industry. I've only got a total of 3 years experience in as many places, so that's probably not a good sample size for a true representative of "industry," but still...
  Two places I worked used Labview (an automotive company and a medical devices company), and a third didn't use anything (food packaging machinery company). Kinda surprising.
  Moreso than experience with software common to industry, I find experience with instrumentation more valuable. If I hadn't gotten "real world" experience before I got my job, I would have had little knowledge about how you measure signals, or even what a relay really is. Darned pet projects and budget cuts in the University scene.
  
  --
  (((dB)))
Rubber hoses by c · 2010-09-13 11:48 · Score: -1, Flamebait

If you put Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith in a room with some of the local secret police thugs, I'm pretty confident that he'd have an affidavit signed in under five minutes indicating that any particular NGO or journalist doesn't meet the blanket license requirements on some technicality. Local Microsoft officials (i.e. those with local families) would best that time by at least four minutes.

--
Log in or piss off.
And that probably goes double for NGOs by Sycraft-fu · 2010-09-13 11:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

NGOs are full of starry idealist types usually, but they are busy being idealistic about their given cause. Often it is something really important, like distributing food to starving people, or vaccinating against deadly, but preventable diseases or shit like that. They do not have time to get all starry eyed about your chosen cause as well, software freedom in this case. They can't go and spend the time to become programmers just so they can "see what the software is doing."
Linux users may not like to admit the fact but in an enterprise setting, Microsoft products get shit done. For some people, that is all that matters, in particular if what they are doing matters more.
1. Re:And that probably goes double for NGOs by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 14:37 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Can somebody clue me in to why there is this concentration of unfounded Linux bashing and Microsoft promotion here? There's absolutely no justification why Windows accomplishes whatever these groups are doing and Linux does not. Yet the mods seemed to love it more than everything else for whatever reason. Metamods, maybe you're our only hope?
2. Re:And that probably goes double for NGOs by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 16:01 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Try not to be such a fucking idiot. Every moron with an IQ above 70 can figure out how to use Windows. Using Linux requires at least an IQ of 90. For an organization which has to take whatever starry-eyed idealists it can find to serve on the staff, using Windows widens the pool of people they can use.
3. Re:And that probably goes double for NGOs by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 18:02 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Wouldn't it be cheaper to just buy Windows for those unfortunate souls with an IQ between 70 and 90?
4. Re:And that probably goes double for NGOs by Mongoose+Disciple · 2010-09-14 01:34 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  There's absolutely no justification why Windows accomplishes whatever these groups are doing and Linux does not.
  However, in at least some cases, Windows is what they are using, and Microsoft is making sure they can do it without going to a Siberian prison for it.
  That's a good thing, unless you think people should go to prison for choosing an OS other than the one you like?
Mighty nice of them by nurb432 · 2010-09-13 12:14 · Score: 1

Was that a pig i just saw fly by?

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
well that was odd by phrostie · 2010-09-13 12:19 · Score: 2, Informative

I may never have a reason to say this ever again so, well done!
Throwing local employees to the wolves? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 12:19 · Score: 0

This is basically Microsoft US trying to out their non-US employees that are on the take, accepting bribes from Russian authorities, but without having to set a single foot in the sales territory itself. A foot that would likely be kidnapped, offered for ransom, and then delivered to Redmond in several plastic bags dripping with bodily fluids.
Outside the US by dynamo · 2010-09-13 12:21 · Score: 0, Flamebait

If this actually made any moral or political sense, they wouldn't restrict it to NGOs outside the US. But it's just a PR stunt, and clearly labelled as such by the narrowness of the change.
Let's all start an NGO by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 12:34 · Score: 0

Let's all start an NGO - thePirateBayUsers should qualify ;-)
(yes, I'm glad I live outside the US)
Did the thermostats in Hell just drop? by SplashMyBandit · 2010-09-13 12:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Never thought I'd be posting this on Slashdot, but an unbelievable move for good by Microsoft. It's good to see them take a stand against repression. Now, I hope these same ethics get cemented in all their business processes.
1. Re:Did the thermostats in Hell just drop? by Alex+Belits · 2010-09-13 12:56 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It only covers organizations that fight against OTHER countries' governments, thus including all CIA front groups. American NGOs still have to pay for Microsoft software.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
2. Re:Did the thermostats in Hell just drop? by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-09-14 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  American NGOs still have to pay for Microsoft software.
  No, not really (well, it depends on the software).
It's not about submitting kernel patches by ciaran_o_riordan · 2010-09-13 12:48 · Score: 1

It's not about submitting kernel patches. It's about seeing who's listening and being able to add security/anonymity/privacy features.
Those thugs don't just arrive randomly.

--
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
1. Re:It's not about submitting kernel patches by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-09-13 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  You're missing the point. We aren't talking about a spy network or some kind of Underground Railroad here. What these organizations do, they do legally and out in the open. They don't hide information, because they would have to divulge it by court order, anyway (and a court order is trivial to obtain in such cases).
  And the thugs? Of course they don't arrive randomly. They arrive specifically to offices of organizations who openly oppose the government and/or its various initiatives.
2. Re:It's not about submitting kernel patches by ciaran_o_riordan · 2010-09-13 13:49 · Score: 1
  
  Some things will be public, like press releases and public statements.
  But having worked in NGOs, there are also things that are private, such as who you are in contact with, and what insider is leaking stuff to you or giving you a nod when something's worth reacting to.
  I'm not saying that safe software turns countries into a wonderland, but it's one of the ingredients.
  And in reply to other comments, it's not about each employee having the source, it's about the whold world having the source. When there are enough concerned users, someone might add the feature you need. With proprietary software, even when there's a billion users, it's still a pile of spyware.
  
  --
  Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
3. Re:It's not about submitting kernel patches by dhavleak · 2010-09-13 22:31 · Score: 1
  
  NGO's should use free software
  
  It's not about submitting kernel patches. It's about seeing who's listening and being able to add security/anonymity/privacy features. Those thugs don't just arrive randomly.
  So your point is that NGOs should use *secure* software? That goes for everyone. Beyond that, don't bring your free software/secure software dogma into this thread - it is not a fact that free software is secure (or insecure) or that closed-source software is insecure (or secure). That's simply another argument, and there's no need to rehash it here.
4. Re:It's not about submitting kernel patches by Mongoose+Disciple · 2010-09-14 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  With proprietary software, even when there's a billion users, it's still a pile of spyware.
  Based on that statement, I submit that you're too much an open source partisan to evaluate this situation rationally.
5. Re:It's not about submitting kernel patches by ciaran_o_riordan · 2010-09-14 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  It was a reference to Windows. Despite there being a userbase of hundreds of millions, none are able to form a community and audit the software or remove the spyware and stop the collecting of personal information.
  As the number of users increases, the changes that there are programmers, security auditors, or concerned businesses increases too. With proprietary software, these people can do little or nothing. With free software, anyone can audit it and anyone can contribute or publish their own fork.
  
  --
  Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Interesting, but... by Adrian+Lopez · 2010-09-13 13:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's an interesting concept, but won't government agents with an agenda simply look to non-Microsoft software as an excuse for a raid?

--
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
1. Re:Interesting, but... by jc42 · 2010-09-13 14:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  ... won't government agents with an agenda simply look to non-Microsoft software as an excuse for a raid?
  It might mean a change in excuse by the Russian cops. After all, if you're running linux or *BSD or other free software, you have a license to run it. Just keep copies of the GPL and other appropriate licenses around to show people.
  Of course, this won't really stop the raids and theft of computers. It'll just mean that "suspected software piracy" won't be the excuse it has been. The government's creative types will think up other wordings.
  It is sorta funny that the Russian cops don't seem to be raiding the botnet operators and other spam operations, which seem to be headquartered in Russia in great numbers these days. I wonder why that might be?
  
  --
  Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
2. Re:Interesting, but... by Angst+Badger · 2010-09-13 16:32 · Score: 1
  
  It's an interesting concept, but won't government agents with an agenda simply look to non-Microsoft software as an excuse for a raid?
  Probably, but for an awful lot of office workers -- and I presume this covers most of the NGOs and journalists in question -- all they need is covered by Microsoft software. And if it's a choice between being swept up by internal security agents or being a 100% Microsoft shop, I'm going to guess that the occasional BSOD beats the inside of a Russian prison.
  
  --
  Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
3. Re:Interesting, but... by gt35r · 2010-09-13 16:49 · Score: 1
  
  That is true, but Microsoft products are relatively ubiquitous, so it was probably very easy for them to use MS as an excuse to raid these groups. So they would have to either find out the group is using a particular software illegally or manufacture evidence of such to get the same effect.
4. Re:Interesting, but... by Aceticon · 2010-09-13 20:27 · Score: 1
  
  In Russia the purpose of the State is to protected the State it's leaders and it's agents, not the People. In Russia, if you endanger the stability of the State (read: are against it's current rulers) then you are a criminal.
  Thus, unless the botnet operators start making political statements against the leaders/agents of the State or start attacking the State's interests they're perfectly safe (as long as they make sure they pay the appropriate bribes).
  For a country that had the potential to be the biguest and most important country in Europe, Russia does seem to have a knack to slip back to Czarist habits at every turn: as somebody once said, "The biggest enemy of Russia are the Russians".
This is gonna be really hard... by ukemike · 2010-09-13 13:52 · Score: 1

This is gonna be really hard, but here it goes...

Yay Microsoft! Well done!

--
-- QED
Losing an entire segment. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 14:16 · Score: 0

I don't know why (tongue in cheek), but I feel getting the licence will not solve the problem...
I bet those Russian NGOs are not exactly delighted in using M$ from now on -- scratch that: any Russian, though Joe Sixpack (Yuri Sixbottles?) might not care.
Scratch that: any dude on any country with which M$ want to be in bed.
But then, we already knew that, didn't we?
Use Free software and then by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 14:24 · Score: 0

Oh yes - I can see Russian NGOs using linux. Suddenly SCO gets a lot more money for its (meritless) legal cases and the Russian government just uses SCO's theories to crack down.
The real WTF is you still visit Digg... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 15:45 · Score: 1, Funny

n/t
Especially if you threaten Apple or FOSS by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 16:05 · Score: 0

"[E]xtremely cheap on a yearly basis" gets even cheaper if you let it be known you are shifting towards Apple or FOSS. Then their "give away software to maintain market dominance" kicks into high gear. Create a "research investment" cut-out, and they will pay you.
Policy of encouraging theft by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 16:16 · Score: 0

MS Exec: As you all know, our policy is to encourage theft. To maintain our market dominance, shut out open source, and make it easier to cry "piracy!" in pursuit of DRMed WindowsEverywhere rent seeking. What can we do about this bad PR without compromising our core Microsoft Uber Alles goals?
Bob: Give away our product to poor NGO's, who in many countries are the community most likely to use FOSS?
MS Exec: Brilliant!
Nice try by uvajed_ekil · 2010-09-13 17:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

I generally have little good to say about Microsoft, but I'll give them a bit of thanks here. It was a nice try. We'll stop there though, because Russia does not really need to act under the guise of protecting Microsoft to crack down on dissenters. They will continue to harass, arrest, and intimidate dissenters and protesters as much as they please, and find some BS justification after the fact, if they feel a need to justify their actions at all. They are certainly more accountable today than during Soviet times, but not by much, and corruption runs rampant at all levels. So this is a nice gesture by Microsoft, but let's not get carried away - it will not serve to protect or promote free speech in Russia.

--
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
Microsoft license or MPEG license? by tepples · 2010-09-13 18:02 · Score: 1

NGO's should use free software.
Where possible. But free software isn't very useful to reporters in jurisdictions with software patents because all widely available digital camcorders use a patented MPEG codec. The United States is not the only such jurisdiction.
Device drivers by tepples · 2010-09-13 18:29 · Score: 1

So what is the definition of a "kernel extension" then?
A module that runs in kernel mode, such as a device driver or a filter driver. Windows Vista introduced a user-mode framework for some kinds of device drivers, but it's not complete: input device drivers still must be kernel modules, and the code signing requirement for these on 64-bit versions of the operating system hurts hobbyist or low-volume makers of accessibility tools.

I understood that antivirus apps used to operate by hooking the Windows kernel and post Vista SP2(?) that's not allowed anymore.
I did a Google search for windows antivirus hooks that led me to a question on Stack Overflow whose answer was file system filter drivers.
That's what Linux is all about, Charlie Brown by tepples · 2010-09-13 18:37 · Score: 1

You know you've been using Linux too long when you watch Peanuts animated specials and you think the voice actors are pronouncing Linus's name wrong. (Linus Torvalds is LEE-nus; Linus van Pelt is LIE-nus.)
this won't change anything by Nyder · 2010-09-13 19:31 · Score: 1

The cops will find another reason to raid the NGO's and put them in jail for something else.
MS isn't doing anything but trying to make them sound like they are nice.
Look, if the police/government is corrupt, which is appears to be, they will find another reason. Sure, the software is easy to do, but they'll figure out something else, they always do.
The problem is the government is corrupt there. Giving away software won't change that.

--
Be seeing you...
Does Linus approve? by oever · 2010-09-13 19:49 · Score: 1

Until Linus licenses his blanket from Microsoft, I'll stick with my duvet.

--
DNA is the ultimate spaghetti code.
Old news again by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 19:59 · Score: 0

I'm sure they announced this on 1 April 2010.
Oh okay, here is the evil bit by SmallFurryCreature · 2010-09-13 21:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

How else could NGO's and such avoid license fees and license nightmares? Why, use opensource. Install linux. Free too.
So to avoid people shifting to an OS that doesn't get you raided, MS offers its software free to a market that isn't exactly rolling in cash anyway. Kinda like the free licenses to schools. The first one is always free.
Now this IS a nice thing MS is doing, IF it doesn't come with the usual hooks, but it is also a good business move.
Mind you, for MS this is amazing :) Something that is good for them AND a lot of people. It is going to be one hell of a cold day.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
1. Re:Oh okay, here is the evil bit by tehcyder · 2010-09-13 23:34 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  How else could NGO's and such avoid license fees and license nightmares? Why, use opensource. Install linux. Free too.
  
  Amd how exqactly is MS stopping anyone from doing this?
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
2. Re:Oh okay, here is the evil bit by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-14 00:42 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  How else could NGO's and such avoid license fees and license nightmares? Why, use opensource. Install linux. Free too.
  How, exactly, does this prevent a raid looking for pirated Microsoft stuff? The authorities won't find anything, but without the blanket license, the pretext still exists.
3. Re:Oh okay, here is the evil bit by x2A · 2010-09-14 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  By providing them with a better option! Damn their evilness! Now people are going to be stuck having to choose the thing that they want out of a choice of many, this is a bad day for freedom :-(
  
  --
  The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
4. Re:Oh okay, here is the evil bit by IICV · 2010-09-14 17:02 · Score: 1
  
  And how does a blanket Microsoft license prevent corrupt authorities from using the pretext of, say, pirated Adobe products?
Wow by ThatsNotPudding · 2010-09-13 23:37 · Score: 1

And they don't even charge you for the NSA backdoor! Seriously; why would any NGO throw away what (I assume) little money they have on non-free software? Is Active X and Clippy central to your mission statement?
gratis software != end harassment by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-14 00:05 · Score: 0

The harassed groups wanted the harassments to stop, not gratis license for a year.
Like this Microsoft is using this as a way of pushing and marketing their license.
Now if you don't get a license you know what awaits you.
Very Bolshevik tactics.
Okay, but... by undecim · 2010-09-14 01:45 · Score: 1

What if governments want to look for a pirated copy of Photoshop?

--
The Internet has given stupid people the resources of intelligent people.
NGOs warm at night thanks to MS by edxwelch · 2010-09-14 01:55 · Score: 1

The begrudgers always critisize, but it's not just blankets - MS are also licensing duvets, bedsheets and pillow slips
I for one welcome our new software overloards! by Il128 · 2010-09-14 04:28 · Score: 1

Meaningless gesture. Will change nothing at all.

--
Thanks to eating disorders most chicks are reasonably good looking these days.
I'm questioning charities today by DriveDog · 2010-09-14 04:30 · Score: 1

Lots of good arguments about what this all means here. I'm of the opinion that it's a win-draw for M$. They don't get paid for what they didn't get paid for before, and they get good PR for this announcement. It keeps them from being scapegoated for some of what the foreign governments are doing. It won't make much difference to the attacked organizations. But what the discussion has done for me is raise awareness. From now on, I will ask every charity to which I give whether they spend money on software with functionality that can be had for free.
Extremely important caveat - it ain't charity! by Medievalist · 2010-09-14 08:35 · Score: 1

For instructional use, they give us software for free. We decided to just go and get their software assurance pack (more or less a site license for their software for any use) and it is extremely cheap on a yearly basis. Students get massive discounts, and the get to keep the license when they leave and use it for any purpose, including for profit.
This is standard practice, and has been since IBM, DEC and Honeywell were competing for marketshare and PCs were not even a glimmer in anyone's eye.
The caveat is that this "Educational Licensing" is for degree granting institutions only. If I run classes for disabled children who will never be able to work, I will not receive this licensing. If I run classes for crippled nuns that were run over by Larry Ellison's car, I will not receive this licensing.
The reason computer companies do this is because of research done by IBM when I was just a pup. The marketing geniuses at IBM figured out that bright young graduates who had been trained on a particular system would influence buying decisions for decades after graduation, by pressuring their employers to purchase the systems they were most competent and comfortable with. By giving their stuff to schools, they receive sales benefits vastly in excess of the cost of providing the tapes (downloads, nowadays); even in the case of hardware there is a significant long-term benefit, so IBM and DEC used to give away hardware too (free hardware is rarer these days because the margins are too thin).

MS and Adobe are actually two of the best companies for cutting educational institutions a break
There's nothing wrong with what they are doing. It's good business! But they are not cutting you a break It's an entirely self-serving and profit making activity. If you're feeling anything more than mild gratitude you are just being used - do you feel like your butcher is "cutting you a break" whenever he doesn't stuff your pork chops with feces? No, you just appreciate a good businessman doing what's right for his own business.

Some of the engineering companies... Well they are assholes :P.
The engineering companies probably can't afford to help you (although it's true they might also be assholes) because they can't recover the costs like Microsoft can.
When I was doing work with underprivileged city kids, Novell and HP stepped up, Microsoft and IBM declined because we weren't "degree granting". When I was working for a non-profit research organization, HP stepped up - with very very expensive hardware I might add - but Microsoft and IBM declined because we weren't "degree granting".
Of course, all that was before Carly Fiorina. I don't know how HP treats non-profit research labs today.