'Mr. Simonyi has left Microsoft with the right to use the intellectual property he developed and patented while working there.'
Last time I checked, works for hire belong to the company - not the employee. This is generous of Micro$oft. It gets to that sticky area that when you develop something, even in your spare time, there is a chance that the company you work for can claim it (they have first 'dibs' on it). There are a lot of instances where companies sue the pants of employees when they try to do this.
Then again, Microsoft may let him go now and come after him later - let him turn it into a success and then claim it was a work-for-hire later.
It's why 'freelance' open-source developers should be careful to make sure their current (and any future) employer won't snatch away their work.
an anonymous reader writes "News.com has a story about combined (legitamite) Windows downloads reaching 0 for 2001. "The Windows operating system market, from a download perspective, accounts for 0 percent of the total operating system downloads each year, or roughly no days' worth of Linux's operating system downloads," [IDC Analyst] Gillen said. "On the second day of January, Linux had generated more operating system downloads than the Windows community (will for the entire year).""
So, your point was that more people buy Windows than Linux. Wow. Anyone could have figured that one out. Why not compare the number of Linux installations to the number of Windows installations? Wouldn't that be a more appropriate benchmark of Linux popularity? As for the commercial side of Linux, I don't think anyone claims to be as competative as Microsoft. Why aren't there meaningful co-relations (eg. 10% more Linux sales than last year)?
Oh well. I don't do things 'cause they are popular, so this means nothing to me.;)
You're right - the distance between the information and the user affects the result. That is, I'll tell you my age group, but not my birthdate. I'll tell you my region, but not my street-address.
Kind of like what dboyles said: by allowing the user to skip questions they don't want to answer, the questions they do answer are far more likely to be honest.
I think there is something to be said about companies that ask for information as an option versus companies that ask for information as a requirement.
For example, company XYZ has released a program called Widget. In order to download Widget, users are asked to fill out a survey so that XYZ may guage the demographics of their target audience.
Some sites will allow you to bypass this step and proceed to download the software. Other sites require this information before revealing the download link. I think that the psychological difference between "required" and "optional" would heavily influence the honesty of the answers.
I know that I never honestly fill out required forms. I'll fill in a bunch of bogus details, get the link, and be on my way. However, if the form is optional, I may download first and, if I like the program, provide some details to the company. The difference? I'm not being forced to give anything up in advance.
Is this true in general? I don't know. But it makes sense to me.
I have an idea for something to replace the survey forms - an AI program to carry out a conversation with the user. Ah ha! We just have to watch out for users that say to the AI - "I am lying" - and hope the AI doesn't need therapy.
reminded me of a certain conversation: Vincent Vega: And you know what they call a... a... a Quarter Pounder with cheese in Paris? Jules: They don't call it a Quarter Pounder with cheese? Vincent Vega: No man, they got the metric system. They wouldn't know what the fuck a Quarter Pounder is. Jules: Then what do they call it? Vincent Vega: They call it a "Royale" with cheese. Jules: A "Royale" with cheese! What do they call a Big Mac? Vincent Vega: A Big Mac's a Big Mac, but they call it "le Big-Mac". Jules: "Le Big-Mac"! Ha ha ha ha! What do they call a Whopper? Vincent Vega: I dunno, I didn't go into Burger King.
The obvious retort is to say that, under any "free" license, if the user is not satisfied with the product then they got what they paid for. Conversly, if I shelled out $5,000 for some software program, I expect some kind of warranty or guarantee about the (1) reliability and (2) usefulness/suitability of the product.
Think about it this way; most lemon laws strive to ensure that both parties come out with a fair deal. The idea is to ensure that neither party is "taken" by the other and that a "dealer" of a product is responsable for providing some measure of quality. Cars, for instance, in a lot of places can be sold as-is without any warranty if the seller does not qualify as a dealer. A dealer is qualified as someone who does it as a business (usually quantified by, say, 5-10 cars per month). The goal of any software lemon law should be similar - hobbyists should be exempt because they are (1) not participating to generate profit and (2) not explictly (or even implictly) providing any warranty or guarantee w.r.t. the software. Conversly, if you are in the business of selling software you SHOULD be held to a higher standard than that of a hobbyist.
RedHat, for instance, should be required to provide a warranty comparable to one that Microsoft would be required to provide on their respective OS products. Besides the for-profit nature of their businesses, they both participate in a manner that requires trust between themselves and the consumer. eg. when I buy a copy of RedHat Linux, I expect and trust that it will perform as they describe. If it does not perform as they describe, I should have the opportunity to return the product for a refund or exchange (the same rule goes for Windows, btw).
Retailers and dealers should be held accountable too. Why? Because, as I mentioned before, they trade in a manner that requires a certain level of trust.
What is the benchmark that says if a product has performed as it says it will? What recourse should the consumer have against the company that created the software? Does the consumer fight with the dealer, distributor, or manufacturer? Valid arguments could be made for all three. However, I believe there should be an implicit warranty between the manufacturer and the consumer. After all, most sane people would blame Microsoft for the shortcomings of Windows - not Dell or Office Depot;).
Okay, all that deals with the idea of the software not performing as expected. Okay. Fine. What about damages? Spyware can be said to cause damage and, yet, they "clam" to be exempt because they put it in the agreement? What if Office crashes and takes all my important documents with it? What liability does Microsoft have when someone exploits a security hole and makes off with your important (lets say, trade secret, financial, etc) documents? Is there/should there be an implicit or explicit limit to the liability of a company? I happen to feel that a entity (individual or company) should be liable for any damage that their product causes (software or otherwise). But does misuse get factored in? If I run FORMAT.COM on my harddrive, is Microsoft liable because it took my saved e-mail with it? Is RedHat liable for my lost Windows partition if I accidently choose to install it over top?
I guess I've provided more questions than answers, but I'm just thinking out loud here. I do think it is very important to watch how this pans out - to make sure hobbyists aren't discoruaged because of possible legal implications.
Re:A better way of pissing on users...
on
Spyware Fights Back
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
You miss the point that Ad-Aware doesn't automatically remove anything. The user is informed of certain programs on their harddisk have been COVERTLY installed. It shows the user where these files are and gives them the option of (a) backing them up and (b) deleting them.
It creates a backup in case deleting them causes another program to malfunction.
The Radlight installer COVERTLY and MALICIOUSLY deletes Ad-Aware from the user's computer. Sure it's in the EULA, but licence agreements CANNOT grant ILLEGAL actions.
Imagine I'm selling you a house. You really want this house and are eager to sign the agreement papers (that you agree to pay and what happens if you don't pay, etc). I insert a clause that says I get your first-born child. You laugh at it but sign the paper anyway because you _really_ want this house.
Years later I come to collect your firstborn child. Do you honestly think that I have any legal right to claim that child? Absolutly not. Because there are inherint legal rights that you can NOT sign away.
The Radlight program is a movie player - not a virus scanner. The function of deleting a program that, in his perception, is a virus should NOT be handled by the installer. It is performing a function that is COMPLETLY contrary to the purpose of the software.
I run an installer to install a program. I run a moive player to watch a movie.
I do NOT, however, want an installer to start covertly deleting software from my computer. It sets an ugly precident that I hope does not explode. What if Corel got in tune with Bonzai buddy and made it so any time you installed or ran Bonzai Buddy, Microsoft Office is deleted from your harddrive. You wouldn't want, nor would you expect something like that.
Now, I do think that he has a valid opinion about Ad-Aware (and I think I tried to express this in my original post). Yes, his software comes bundled with an app that he makes money from. You either take the whole package or nothing at all. The problem is that he doesn't really tell you this. I'll wager that his un-installer doesn't put back the Ad-Adware software (un-install should perform the exact opposite function of the installer). People should respect this and not remove the component unless they remove the entire package.
As for liability? He has written and release a program that performs a virual function. He could be in serious trouble if the program malfunctions in any way, shape, or form. Regardless of what his EULA states, there are things you are not allowed to do.
If I broke into your house and left a note on the door saying "I am not responsable for any damage that has occured as a result of my break-in" that wouldn't really mean anything beyond "hahaha, I broke into your house and trashed the place."
Just because it is written does not make it enforceable or even actionable.
A better way of pissing on users...
on
Spyware Fights Back
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
This guy has decided that his revenue model is bundling his app with a third party program. This third party program is generally considered spyware but, at the same time, can be considered a legitamite app (just not the one that you were downloading).
He _does_ have a legitamite gripe about adaware. That is, with or without the user's permission, adaware conspicously removes a portion of his application (specifically the part that presumeably pays him).
This is fine, as far as I'm concerened. However, his installer is ass-backwards.
How would I have done it (note: I wouldn't have done it at all, but to each his own): When the installer launches have it check for the presense of Adaware. If adaware is installed then tell the user something to the effect of "Aborting install: Adaware detected." This way it is (a) clear that the program does not play well with Adaware and (b) the author has a gripe about adaware.
Instead he has written an installer that performs a virual function (destroying software without the users knowledge or permission) and is trying to legitamize it by pointing his finger at Lavasoft (adaware). Even if you accept his reasoning that Adaware is the evil culprit, that does not make his program any less evil. He is selling a video player and not an ad-remover remover.
Basically he just found a whole new way to piss on his userbase.
With every day that passes, Java grows more and more mature. Developers can learn and use the language in the wild, so to speak, and continually work with it and understand all of it's little... quirks.
C# is new. It's flashy. It's Java when it first came out. It's also immature and not widely used or even understood. With all the weight Microsoft will flog behind it there is no doubt that it will be a platform du jour for many developers. However, that does not mean it will displace Java.
For fucks sake, many places are still using COBOL. C didn't dislodge it, neither did Java dislodge C or C++. Sure Java, and eventually C#, is popular, but that doesn't mean that these other languages simply drop from the face of the Earth.
Too many retards are comming along plugging specific programming languages as the be-all and end-all cure for every programming woe that ever has been or ever will exist. In fact there is benifit from being able to choose languages and systems that cater to certain kinds of tasks.
I doubt many existing systems will be rewritten simply because Microsoft is thrusting C#. CLR? So, maybe, Perl or C++ or even Java can compile into the.NET bytecode? The question is will it work the same as their original counterpart? Will it work flawlessly with so-called "legacy" code.
I think a better apprasial would be that it will take 5 years for C# and.Net to mature enough to "compete" with Java. Some of those years have already passed, but many more are still to come.
Blizzard is only protecting their investment. They developed the protocol and the software and the system and the clients and everything involoved. All of their newer products include support for BATTLE.NET and they used it as a value-added feature of those games (what value it is to you is, of course, debateable). Weather or not they charge for their services is not important. What is important is that by having a central multiplayer server it helps them, in their own minds, curb piracy to a limited extent. They've basically limited pirates to only being able to play by themselves and on lans.
Remember, they don't see their customers as honest people. They see a few honest people and a scourge of pirates, hocking their warez. To them, BnetD is an outright attemt from the pirates as a way of compensating for the lack of BATTLE.NET support in the pirated version of the game. Obviously, the developers of BnetD would disagree with this assessment, but lets see which arguement holds water.
Blizzards argument: People are _using_ bnetd to play pirated copies of our released games and pirated copies of a game still in development. While bnetd _can_ be used to host honest servers, the majority of bnetd servers seem to allow pirates and hooligans to steal and exploit our software.
BnetD argument: BATTLE.NET sucks. It sucks so hard that we took it upon ourselves to develop our own server software to play with. We were also curious as to how the BATTLE.NET protocol worked. We are honest owners of the games we play and expect that everyone else will do the same now that we've given it away. We cannot implement the CD-KEY check because you won't tell us how.
Facts: - Blizzard is under NO OBLIGATION to make "open" the BATTLE.NET protocol. - the BnetD had NO RIGHT to reverse-engineer the BATTLE.NET protocol. Even if they did, it's a moot point because: - the BnetD provides a way to circumvent the copy control measures of the BATTLE.NET portion of Blizzard's games (the "copy control measures" being the cd-key check).
At any rate, Blizzard should look to what Sierra/Valve did with the Half-Life keyserver. I think that Blizzard sees BATTLE.NET as a way for people to play a game with persistant characters. What they don't seem to understand is that there are thousands of people out there who are willing to run free and legitamite servers - to help improve overall performance. They should have a central key-server that people must authenticate against before being able to connect to a 3rd party server (and this doesn't have to expose their algorythim as they claim).
While I don't think they should, I do think that Blizzard has the right to ask for the BnetD project to be terminated. I think they should also drop the ".NET" from BATTLE.NET because a network is a connection of multiple server computers that provides services to multiple clients. BALTTLE.NET is only one server (internally there may be dozens, but externally there are only the Blizzard owned/controlled servers).
I'd imagine that that is the reason why more sensible people settle out of court - rather than risk messing up their credit records. I have no idea what I would do if I were sued by someone with a lot more money than me. I'm not poor, but I'm not rich either. My meager savings are no use against the power of the dark side... er... people with more money.
I think the petswarehouse company does have a case against some of the users who were libelous, but certainly not against everyone. A legitamite complaint is a legitamite complaint and is not libel (afaik, libel is the written form of slander and it has to be untrue to qualify). He should not be allowed to sue everyone in sight simply because he has the ability to do so. He is doing more direct financial harm to these people then their comments could have indirectly caused (if we are to believe that they caused any damage at all).
"Dan Resler agreed to pay $4,150. [...] 'We believed strongly that we could win,' says Resler, 'but I was not prepared to spend $50,000 to do it. So, I settled.'".
That is horrible. It's like saying "I didn't do anything wrong but if I try to defend myself I'll ruin my life". It's redicilous to think that you only have a right to a fair trial if you have the money to do so. So I guess it's liberty and justice for those who can afford it. Hah.
When I was working residence network support at Sheridan College, I put together a CD that was extremly useful in installing/supporting network adaptors.
It contained: 3COM 3c905b-tx drivers (our PCI nic), ne2000 drivers, some generic isa drivers, windows 95 and 98 versions of poledit, regedit, the windows 98 ptp and w2k ptp fixes (we were using plain-text auth at the time. not necessary but it gave 'em access to their network drives), and the cab files from windows 95, osr2.5, 98, and 98se (great for when windows asks you to insert the 9x cd during the install, I don't have to switch anything).
It also had a few diagnostic tools and some minor documentation I wrote on how to install a nic (such as weird bios configs, SBLive issues, etc). While this cd was never distributed, it was an excellent tool in getting people online.
That is what ISP's should give - a tool that helps the user get online. I hate custom browser and propritary dialers because they can be a pain in the arse to get working properly if your system is even slightly out of "spec".
Keep It Simple.
Re:How would you like to be a customer of these gu
on
Spy v. Spy
·
· Score: 2
"I know - write an iron clad EULA to prevent reverse engineering, encrypt everything, and then just sue one another under the DMCA or somesuch until both companies are broke. Yeah, that's the ticket! There's not going to be any winners here..."
And, as usual, the lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank.
Microsoft (or at least it's engineers) want one whiz-bang protocol to service everything. Why? Humm. Control? Nah, they'd have to standardize it.
Why the rush away from streamlined protocols? Why not create a menu of simple and useful protocols that do one job and do it very well. By having a so-called "super protocol" that handle everything, you end up with a bloated, slow, and ugly mess.
What do they want to replace it?
Oh, I bet this is a ploy to duck around that Windows isn't powrful enough to handle large web services... oops, I've said too much.
What I don't like are numeric codes that have no meaning.
Example; I was working with this old DOS package and migrating it to NT (no source code available). At one point, when requesting a certain menu, it would spit out a long error number. Completly meaningless to me.
We call the software support people, give them the code. "File not found" he says. Okay, which file (this program was written in some form of COBOL and had no less tan 400 files - not including the acutal data files). "Oh, I don't know, the number just tells us that a file is missing."
Even after re-copying EVERY SINGLE FILE over it still didn't work.
The solution:
FILES=30
The error SHOULD have been something like Not enough file handles... But noooooooo. They have to be 1337 and use a cryptic number that even THEY don't understand. Woop!
Fair enough, but my argument is that he HAS cost the author software.
Okay, let us differenciate software piracy and using pirated software into seperate activities.
Software piracy is the activity of trading software - passing it around. I've talked to people who consider doing this activity and equate it to trading baseball cards. They work to have the lastest and greatest as fast as possible and before anyone else. The prestige of couriring/distributing before anyone else is their drive.
I grew up in the old scene. I've been on some of the largest BBS's in the world. Most of these "traders" dedicate a lot of time to copying pirated software. They don't _use_ it at all and have no intent of using it.
The other activity is actually using the software. What I wanted to point out in my reply was that when you use software, you typically use it to attain some benifit. You don't use software that doesn't benifit you and you don't pay for software that doesn't benifit you.
I would NEVER buy the software from the article because (1) I don't have a Mac and (2) I have no use of the software. What use does a programmer have for a web-design package (assuming this individual never does or wants to do webdesign)? Probably none, so they wouldn't go out and buy a web-design package - it doesn't give them any benifit. But a source-code editior with integrated syntax hiliting may be useful and provide benifit to this individual. However, that software was created from the time and effort of someone else.
"if someone steals software that he wouldn't have used anyway, he has not cost the author a penny."
I agree with you that the mere act of stealing software does not deprive vendors of money. However, my argument is that the USE of stolen software does cost the vendor money. Why? Because if you USE the software then you are gaining benifit from someone elses work. Unless you are interested in switching to a communistic society, then that effort/time is worth money.
Think of it this way: You get beinifit from using a software package. By not paying for the software, you have deprived the author of the benifit of having created that software - the benifit of "reaping the rewards of his/her labour".
There are people out there that enjoy programming as a hobby. They view the benifit of writing software as a benifit into itself. Because it costs them nothing to distribute the fruits of their labour, they choose to give it out freely - look to the open source movement.
Other people decide that the funding for thier time/effort should come from the pockets of the users of the software.
Your argument negates the benifit that someone has taken from the author. They have taken this benifit without permission and without paying for it. A benifit is inherintly valuable (you may argue over the exact value, but to deny that value exists means you have no use of the software) and you are stealing this value from the vendor.
Your argument also fails against itself:
"if someone steals software that he wouldn't have used anyway"
I hate macaroni and cheese. It just doesn't do anything for me. Why in fucks sake would I go into a store and steal a ton of craft dinner? I wouldn't - and I wouldn't buy it either. If someone offered to buy some for me I wouldn't accept - I have no use for the food because I do not like it nor do I need it because there is other food out there that I do like (and don't bring a "starvation" argument into this).
Your argument has me taking the food I dislike - and will never eat - simply because it is there for the taking. A very silly argument indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like an interesting Half-Life mod..
OMG, THIS d00d IS WALLHAX0R1NG!!!!
lol. I was going to include that as an example but chickened out at the last moment.
I think they mean
"Mr. Simonyi has [departed] Microsoft with the right to use the intellectual property he developed and patented while working there."
Meaning that Microsoft holds the patents and he has been given the right to use them without forking over license fees.
You forgot the end of the sentance:
'Mr. Simonyi has left Microsoft with the right to use the intellectual property he developed and patented while working there.'
Last time I checked, works for hire belong to the company - not the employee. This is generous of Micro$oft. It gets to that sticky area that when you develop something, even in your spare time, there is a chance that the company you work for can claim it (they have first 'dibs' on it). There are a lot of instances where companies sue the pants of employees when they try to do this.
Then again, Microsoft may let him go now and come after him later - let him turn it into a success and then claim it was a work-for-hire later.
It's why 'freelance' open-source developers should be careful to make sure their current (and any future) employer won't snatch away their work.
... which is why I included the word "(legitamite)" just before what you had quoted ...
an anonymous reader writes "News.com has a story about combined (legitamite) Windows downloads reaching 0 for 2001. "The Windows operating system market, from a download perspective, accounts for 0 percent of the total operating system downloads each year, or roughly no days' worth of Linux's operating system downloads," [IDC Analyst] Gillen said. "On the second day of January, Linux had generated more operating system downloads than the Windows community (will for the entire year).""
;)
So, your point was that more people buy Windows than Linux. Wow. Anyone could have figured that one out. Why not compare the number of Linux installations to the number of Windows installations? Wouldn't that be a more appropriate benchmark of Linux popularity? As for the commercial side of Linux, I don't think anyone claims to be as competative as Microsoft. Why aren't there meaningful co-relations (eg. 10% more Linux sales than last year)?
Oh well. I don't do things 'cause they are popular, so this means nothing to me.
You're right - the distance between the information and the user affects the result. That is, I'll tell you my age group, but not my birthdate. I'll tell you my region, but not my street-address.
Kind of like what dboyles said: by allowing the user to skip questions they don't want to answer, the questions they do answer are far more likely to be honest.
*clap* *clap* *clap*
:)
You sir, are my hero.
I think there is something to be said about companies that ask for information as an option versus companies that ask for information as a requirement.
For example, company XYZ has released a program called Widget. In order to download Widget, users are asked to fill out a survey so that XYZ may guage the demographics of their target audience.
Some sites will allow you to bypass this step and proceed to download the software. Other sites require this information before revealing the download link. I think that the psychological difference between "required" and "optional" would heavily influence the honesty of the answers.
I know that I never honestly fill out required forms. I'll fill in a bunch of bogus details, get the link, and be on my way. However, if the form is optional, I may download first and, if I like the program, provide some details to the company. The difference? I'm not being forced to give anything up in advance.
Is this true in general? I don't know. But it makes sense to me.
I have an idea for something to replace the survey forms - an AI program to carry out a conversation with the user. Ah ha! We just have to watch out for users that say to the AI - "I am lying" - and hope the AI doesn't need therapy.
reminded me of a certain conversation:
... a ... a Quarter Pounder with cheese in Paris?
Vincent Vega: And you know what they call a
Jules: They don't call it a Quarter Pounder with cheese?
Vincent Vega: No man, they got the metric system. They wouldn't know what the fuck a Quarter Pounder is.
Jules: Then what do they call it?
Vincent Vega: They call it a "Royale" with cheese.
Jules: A "Royale" with cheese! What do they call a Big Mac?
Vincent Vega: A Big Mac's a Big Mac, but they call it "le Big-Mac".
Jules: "Le Big-Mac"! Ha ha ha ha! What do they call a Whopper?
Vincent Vega: I dunno, I didn't go into Burger King.
The obvious retort is to say that, under any "free" license, if the user is not satisfied with the product then they got what they paid for. Conversly, if I shelled out $5,000 for some software program, I expect some kind of warranty or guarantee about the (1) reliability and (2) usefulness/suitability of the product.
;).
Think about it this way; most lemon laws strive to ensure that both parties come out with a fair deal. The idea is to ensure that neither party is "taken" by the other and that a "dealer" of a product is responsable for providing some measure of quality. Cars, for instance, in a lot of places can be sold as-is without any warranty if the seller does not qualify as a dealer. A dealer is qualified as someone who does it as a business (usually quantified by, say, 5-10 cars per month). The goal of any software lemon law should be similar - hobbyists should be exempt because they are (1) not participating to generate profit and (2) not explictly (or even implictly) providing any warranty or guarantee w.r.t. the software. Conversly, if you are in the business of selling software you SHOULD be held to a higher standard than that of a hobbyist.
RedHat, for instance, should be required to provide a warranty comparable to one that Microsoft would be required to provide on their respective OS products. Besides the for-profit nature of their businesses, they both participate in a manner that requires trust between themselves and the consumer. eg. when I buy a copy of RedHat Linux, I expect and trust that it will perform as they describe. If it does not perform as they describe, I should have the opportunity to return the product for a refund or exchange (the same rule goes for Windows, btw).
Retailers and dealers should be held accountable too. Why? Because, as I mentioned before, they trade in a manner that requires a certain level of trust.
What is the benchmark that says if a product has performed as it says it will? What recourse should the consumer have against the company that created the software? Does the consumer fight with the dealer, distributor, or manufacturer? Valid arguments could be made for all three. However, I believe there should be an implicit warranty between the manufacturer and the consumer. After all, most sane people would blame Microsoft for the shortcomings of Windows - not Dell or Office Depot
Okay, all that deals with the idea of the software not performing as expected. Okay. Fine. What about damages? Spyware can be said to cause damage and, yet, they "clam" to be exempt because they put it in the agreement? What if Office crashes and takes all my important documents with it? What liability does Microsoft have when someone exploits a security hole and makes off with your important (lets say, trade secret, financial, etc) documents? Is there/should there be an implicit or explicit limit to the liability of a company? I happen to feel that a entity (individual or company) should be liable for any damage that their product causes (software or otherwise). But does misuse get factored in? If I run FORMAT.COM on my harddrive, is Microsoft liable because it took my saved e-mail with it? Is RedHat liable for my lost Windows partition if I accidently choose to install it over top?
I guess I've provided more questions than answers, but I'm just thinking out loud here. I do think it is very important to watch how this pans out - to make sure hobbyists aren't discoruaged because of possible legal implications.
You miss the point that Ad-Aware doesn't automatically remove anything. The user is informed of certain programs on their harddisk have been COVERTLY installed. It shows the user where these files are and gives them the option of (a) backing them up and (b) deleting them.
It creates a backup in case deleting them causes another program to malfunction.
The Radlight installer COVERTLY and MALICIOUSLY deletes Ad-Aware from the user's computer. Sure it's in the EULA, but licence agreements CANNOT grant ILLEGAL actions.
Imagine I'm selling you a house. You really want this house and are eager to sign the agreement papers (that you agree to pay and what happens if you don't pay, etc). I insert a clause that says I get your first-born child. You laugh at it but sign the paper anyway because you _really_ want this house.
Years later I come to collect your firstborn child. Do you honestly think that I have any legal right to claim that child? Absolutly not. Because there are inherint legal rights that you can NOT sign away.
The Radlight program is a movie player - not a virus scanner. The function of deleting a program that, in his perception, is a virus should NOT be handled by the installer. It is performing a function that is COMPLETLY contrary to the purpose of the software.
I run an installer to install a program.
I run a moive player to watch a movie.
I do NOT, however, want an installer to start covertly deleting software from my computer. It sets an ugly precident that I hope does not explode. What if Corel got in tune with Bonzai buddy and made it so any time you installed or ran Bonzai Buddy, Microsoft Office is deleted from your harddrive. You wouldn't want, nor would you expect something like that.
Now, I do think that he has a valid opinion about Ad-Aware (and I think I tried to express this in my original post). Yes, his software comes bundled with an app that he makes money from. You either take the whole package or nothing at all. The problem is that he doesn't really tell you this. I'll wager that his un-installer doesn't put back the Ad-Adware software (un-install should perform the exact opposite function of the installer). People should respect this and not remove the component unless they remove the entire package.
As for liability? He has written and release a program that performs a virual function. He could be in serious trouble if the program malfunctions in any way, shape, or form. Regardless of what his EULA states, there are things you are not allowed to do.
If I broke into your house and left a note on the door saying "I am not responsable for any damage that has occured as a result of my break-in" that wouldn't really mean anything beyond "hahaha, I broke into your house and trashed the place."
Just because it is written does not make it enforceable or even actionable.
This guy has decided that his revenue model is bundling his app with a third party program. This third party program is generally considered spyware but, at the same time, can be considered a legitamite app (just not the one that you were downloading).
He _does_ have a legitamite gripe about adaware. That is, with or without the user's permission, adaware conspicously removes a portion of his application (specifically the part that presumeably pays him).
This is fine, as far as I'm concerened. However, his installer is ass-backwards.
How would I have done it (note: I wouldn't have done it at all, but to each his own): When the installer launches have it check for the presense of Adaware. If adaware is installed then tell the user something to the effect of "Aborting install: Adaware detected." This way it is (a) clear that the program does not play well with Adaware and (b) the author has a gripe about adaware.
Instead he has written an installer that performs a virual function (destroying software without the users knowledge or permission) and is trying to legitamize it by pointing his finger at Lavasoft (adaware). Even if you accept his reasoning that Adaware is the evil culprit, that does not make his program any less evil. He is selling a video player and not an ad-remover remover.
Basically he just found a whole new way to piss on his userbase.
Could this be the 'chip'?
With every day that passes, Java grows more and more mature. Developers can learn and use the language in the wild, so to speak, and continually work with it and understand all of it's little... quirks.
.NET bytecode? The question is will it work the same as their original counterpart? Will it work flawlessly with so-called "legacy" code.
.Net to mature enough to "compete" with Java. Some of those years have already passed, but many more are still to come.
C# is new. It's flashy. It's Java when it first came out. It's also immature and not widely used or even understood. With all the weight Microsoft will flog behind it there is no doubt that it will be a platform du jour for many developers. However, that does not mean it will displace Java.
For fucks sake, many places are still using COBOL. C didn't dislodge it, neither did Java dislodge C or C++. Sure Java, and eventually C#, is popular, but that doesn't mean that these other languages simply drop from the face of the Earth.
Too many retards are comming along plugging specific programming languages as the be-all and end-all cure for every programming woe that ever has been or ever will exist. In fact there is benifit from being able to choose languages and systems that cater to certain kinds of tasks.
I doubt many existing systems will be rewritten simply because Microsoft is thrusting C#. CLR? So, maybe, Perl or C++ or even Java can compile into the
I think a better apprasial would be that it will take 5 years for C# and
Welcome to the future of computing!
Pay, pay, pay, pay, pay...
GG Corporate America.
K THX BYE BYE!
Blizzard is only protecting their investment. They developed the protocol and the software and the system and the clients and everything involoved. All of their newer products include support for BATTLE.NET and they used it as a value-added feature of those games (what value it is to you is, of course, debateable). Weather or not they charge for their services is not important. What is important is that by having a central multiplayer server it helps them, in their own minds, curb piracy to a limited extent. They've basically limited pirates to only being able to play by themselves and on lans.
Remember, they don't see their customers as honest people. They see a few honest people and a scourge of pirates, hocking their warez. To them, BnetD is an outright attemt from the pirates as a way of compensating for the lack of BATTLE.NET support in the pirated version of the game. Obviously, the developers of BnetD would disagree with this assessment, but lets see which arguement holds water.
Blizzards argument: People are _using_ bnetd to play pirated copies of our released games and pirated copies of a game still in development. While bnetd _can_ be used to host honest servers, the majority of bnetd servers seem to allow pirates and hooligans to steal and exploit our software.
BnetD argument: BATTLE.NET sucks. It sucks so hard that we took it upon ourselves to develop our own server software to play with. We were also curious as to how the BATTLE.NET protocol worked. We are honest owners of the games we play and expect that everyone else will do the same now that we've given it away. We cannot implement the CD-KEY check because you won't tell us how.
Facts:
- Blizzard is under NO OBLIGATION to make "open" the BATTLE.NET protocol.
- the BnetD had NO RIGHT to reverse-engineer the BATTLE.NET protocol. Even if they did, it's a moot point because:
- the BnetD provides a way to circumvent the copy control measures of the BATTLE.NET portion of Blizzard's games (the "copy control measures" being the cd-key check).
At any rate, Blizzard should look to what Sierra/Valve did with the Half-Life keyserver. I think that Blizzard sees BATTLE.NET as a way for people to play a game with persistant characters. What they don't seem to understand is that there are thousands of people out there who are willing to run free and legitamite servers - to help improve overall performance. They should have a central key-server that people must authenticate against before being able to connect to a 3rd party server (and this doesn't have to expose their algorythim as they claim).
While I don't think they should, I do think that Blizzard has the right to ask for the BnetD project to be terminated. I think they should also drop the ".NET" from BATTLE.NET because a network is a connection of multiple server computers that provides services to multiple clients. BALTTLE.NET is only one server (internally there may be dozens, but externally there are only the Blizzard owned/controlled servers).
In any event...
That is a very good point.
I'd imagine that that is the reason why more sensible people settle out of court - rather than risk messing up their credit records. I have no idea what I would do if I were sued by someone with a lot more money than me. I'm not poor, but I'm not rich either. My meager savings are no use against the power of the dark side... er... people with more money.
I think the petswarehouse company does have a case against some of the users who were libelous, but certainly not against everyone. A legitamite complaint is a legitamite complaint and is not libel (afaik, libel is the written form of slander and it has to be untrue to qualify). He should not be allowed to sue everyone in sight simply because he has the ability to do so. He is doing more direct financial harm to these people then their comments could have indirectly caused (if we are to believe that they caused any damage at all).
"Dan Resler agreed to pay $4,150. [...] 'We believed strongly that we could win,' says Resler, 'but I was not prepared to spend $50,000 to do it. So, I settled.'".
That is horrible. It's like saying "I didn't do anything wrong but if I try to defend myself I'll ruin my life". It's redicilous to think that you only have a right to a fair trial if you have the money to do so. So I guess it's liberty and justice for those who can afford it. Hah.
When I was working residence network support at Sheridan College, I put together a CD that was extremly useful in installing/supporting network adaptors.
It contained: 3COM 3c905b-tx drivers (our PCI nic), ne2000 drivers, some generic isa drivers, windows 95 and 98 versions of poledit, regedit, the windows 98 ptp and w2k ptp fixes (we were using plain-text auth at the time. not necessary but it gave 'em access to their network drives), and the cab files from windows 95, osr2.5, 98, and 98se (great for when windows asks you to insert the 9x cd during the install, I don't have to switch anything).
It also had a few diagnostic tools and some minor documentation I wrote on how to install a nic (such as weird bios configs, SBLive issues, etc). While this cd was never distributed, it was an excellent tool in getting people online.
That is what ISP's should give - a tool that helps the user get online. I hate custom browser and propritary dialers because they can be a pain in the arse to get working properly if your system is even slightly out of "spec".
Keep It Simple.
"I know - write an iron clad EULA to prevent reverse engineering, encrypt everything, and then just sue one another under the DMCA or somesuch until both companies are broke. Yeah, that's the ticket! There's not going to be any winners here..."
And, as usual, the lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank.
Check out this if you want to know what the trailer will be like.
Microsoft (or at least it's engineers) want one whiz-bang protocol to service everything. Why? Humm. Control? Nah, they'd have to standardize it.
Why the rush away from streamlined protocols? Why not create a menu of simple and useful protocols that do one job and do it very well. By having a so-called "super protocol" that handle everything, you end up with a bloated, slow, and ugly mess.
What do they want to replace it?
Oh, I bet this is a ploy to duck around that Windows isn't powrful enough to handle large web services... oops, I've said too much.
What I don't like are numeric codes that have no meaning.
Example; I was working with this old DOS package and migrating it to NT (no source code available). At one point, when requesting a certain menu, it would spit out a long error number. Completly meaningless to me.
We call the software support people, give them the code. "File not found" he says. Okay, which file (this program was written in some form of COBOL and had no less tan 400 files - not including the acutal data files). "Oh, I don't know, the number just tells us that a file is missing."
Even after re-copying EVERY SINGLE FILE over it still didn't work.
The solution:
FILES=30
The error SHOULD have been something like Not enough file handles... But noooooooo. They have to be 1337 and use a cryptic number that even THEY don't understand. Woop!
heh.
Fair enough, but my argument is that he HAS cost the author software.
Okay, let us differenciate software piracy and using pirated software into seperate activities.
Software piracy is the activity of trading software - passing it around. I've talked to people who consider doing this activity and equate it to trading baseball cards. They work to have the lastest and greatest as fast as possible and before anyone else. The prestige of couriring/distributing before anyone else is their drive.
I grew up in the old scene. I've been on some of the largest BBS's in the world. Most of these "traders" dedicate a lot of time to copying pirated software. They don't _use_ it at all and have no intent of using it.
The other activity is actually using the software. What I wanted to point out in my reply was that when you use software, you typically use it to attain some benifit. You don't use software that doesn't benifit you and you don't pay for software that doesn't benifit you.
I would NEVER buy the software from the article because (1) I don't have a Mac and (2) I have no use of the software. What use does a programmer have for a web-design package (assuming this individual never does or wants to do webdesign)? Probably none, so they wouldn't go out and buy a web-design package - it doesn't give them any benifit. But a source-code editior with integrated syntax hiliting may be useful and provide benifit to this individual. However, that software was created from the time and effort of someone else.
"if someone steals software that he wouldn't have used anyway, he has not cost the author a penny."
I agree with you that the mere act of stealing software does not deprive vendors of money. However, my argument is that the USE of stolen software does cost the vendor money. Why? Because if you USE the software then you are gaining benifit from someone elses work. Unless you are interested in switching to a communistic society, then that effort/time is worth money.
Think of it this way: You get beinifit from using a software package. By not paying for the software, you have deprived the author of the benifit of having created that software - the benifit of "reaping the rewards of his/her labour".
There are people out there that enjoy programming as a hobby. They view the benifit of writing software as a benifit into itself. Because it costs them nothing to distribute the fruits of their labour, they choose to give it out freely - look to the open source movement.
Other people decide that the funding for thier time/effort should come from the pockets of the users of the software.
Your argument negates the benifit that someone has taken from the author. They have taken this benifit without permission and without paying for it. A benifit is inherintly valuable (you may argue over the exact value, but to deny that value exists means you have no use of the software) and you are stealing this value from the vendor.
Your argument also fails against itself:
"if someone steals software that he wouldn't have used anyway"
I hate macaroni and cheese. It just doesn't do anything for me. Why in fucks sake would I go into a store and steal a ton of craft dinner? I wouldn't - and I wouldn't buy it either. If someone offered to buy some for me I wouldn't accept - I have no use for the food because I do not like it nor do I need it because there is other food out there that I do like (and don't bring a "starvation" argument into this).
Your argument has me taking the food I dislike - and will never eat - simply because it is there for the taking. A very silly argument indeed.