On November 17, 2003, Microsoft introduced an open and royalty-free license and documentation for the Microsoft Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas including WordprocessingML, SpreadsheetML and Formtemplate schemas. The following license applies to the schema files and technical documentation and must be included in any copies that are made of the schema files and technical documentation. The Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas are available through the Download Center.
-----
Legal Notice
Permission to copy, display and distribute the contents of this document (the "Specification"), in any medium for any purpose without fee or royalty is hereby granted, provided that you include the following notice on ALL copies of the Specification, or portions thereof, that you make:
No right to create modifications or derivatives of this Specification is granted herein.
There is a separate patent license available to parties interested in implementing software programs that can read and write files that conform to the Specification. This patent license is available at this location: http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpaten tlicense.asp.
THE SPECIFICATION IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND MICROSOFT MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, OR TITLE; THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE SPECIFICATION ARE SUITABLE FOR ANY PURPOSE; NOR THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH CONTENTS WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY THIRD PARTY PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS OR OTHER RIGHTS. MICROSOFT WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO ANY USE OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE SPECIFICATION.
The name and trademarks of Microsoft may NOT be used in any manner, including advertising or publicity pertaining to the Specification or its contents without specific, written prior permission. Title to copyright in the Specification will at all times remain with Microsoft.
No other rights are granted by implication, estoppel or otherwise.
Let's take a closer look.
On the legal notice page, we see that "The following license applies to the schema files... and must be included in any copies that are made of the schema files..." Thus, if you include one of their XSDs (schema files) in order to parse an Office document, then "No right to create modifications or derivatives of this Specification is granted herein."
That pretty much precludes even a BSD license. The "openness" of these schemas includes the ability to use it as Microsoft has defined them, not the ability to modify it as you see fit.
Come on people--this is f*cked up. Sampling a few seconds of somebody else's song, even if it *is* recognizable, and even if it is TheReallyHardPartThatTookYouTenYearsToMaster (c) is not a crime and should not require your permission.
There is a slippery slope here. What are we going to make illegal next? Collages?
If it "throws out 1/25000 of all legitimate messages" and if you are getting 10 legitimate e-mails per day, then you will be missing one legitimate e-mail every 2,500 days, or about every 7 years. I would be very happy to miss one legitimate e-mail every seven years to stop from having those 5-10 spams per day.
In a massive, huge, prolonged test (I compared MSN and Google searches for the terms best browser and browser) I was expecting to see a bias toward Microsoft on MSN, and no bias on Google. While I did find the bias toward MS, I also found what I took to be a bias against Microsoft on Google!
If you received (or even had simultaneous access to) the source, it's your responsibility to provide it when you provide the binary.
It *is* your responsibility to provide the source, but you do not have to include it under section 3A. You can provide it under section 3B or 3C if you like. Providing the source "when you provide the binary" is an option, not a requirement, of the GPL.
Ummm no, yourself. You *do* have to release any tools or scripts you use to create the binary, with some exceptions (see section 3 of the GPL):
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files,
plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
The first poster is grammatically correct. Separate the subjects: "I... did the same," and "... my classmates did the same." Writing "Me and my classmates did the same," would be incorrect.
I'll take the high road and assume that when you wrote "I'm guess..." that you were either trolling or you made a typo.
Instead of disallowing DoubleClick cookies, edit your hosts file to change the address for the DoubleClick sites. These are the relevant ones that I've got in my hosts file--YMMV.
But I say again, boycotting anything TCG is simply pointless.
It has a very specific and dramatic point: to stop those who want to implement DRM using "trusted platform modules".
If TPMs become commonplace, then we won't be able to control our computers. I'm happy that you've got a benign computer that only controls access to your fingerprint files, but what if the programs that you cannot control are set to do things that you don't want them to do? Paranoia? Yes, but there are definitely societal pressures to go that direction, so I'm rebelling against them now, while I have a chance.
Because of this news, I finally got off my @ss and installed the GIMP. I had been using Paint Shop Pro, which is good and all for what I want it for, but it ain't libre. Mozilla, Gaim, and GIMP. Now if I can just kick the Windows habit.
If you know the sites that a person visits, you can get a pretty good picture of what the person is interested in, and therefore, what advertisements he/she will respond to.
Look at your own browser history and see if you can figure out any patterns from it. It might tell you something about yourself. The $2 question is: would you want anyone else to know that?
Search-related projects on Mozdev GoogleBar- Emulates the Google toolbar that only works in IE Companion- Emulates the Yahoo! Companion toolbar in Mozilla. Easysearch- Offers a search toolbar with more general coverage of many search engines. ExPASybar- Searches the ExPASy database of biomolecules. Mycroft- Collection of search plugins for Mozilla's sidebar search (formerly known as Sherlock) Gimli- Another project to re-create popular toolbars, starting with a dictionary. NeedleSearch- Allows users to search using search engines installed in Mozilla, or add a new search string to the toolbar automatically. Pubmed- Searches the NLM/Medline database of articles and citations in the field of medicine. Qlookup- Add Google search to the context menu
>> You don't have the right to go editing it [an artwork] to suit your own desires though and then resell the edited version for cash.
You're wrong. I do have the right to purchase a physical book from you and black out the "bad" passages, and I do have the right to resell it for cash. Not a copy of it, mind you--you still have the copyright.
I do have the right to my opinion that minutes 12.1 to 13.6 and 34.9 to 40.0 contain violence unsuitable for children under 18, and I do have the right to physically cut those minutes out of the tape I purchased from you and resell it for cash, just as I do have the right to sell you a $79 player which will automatically skip over those minutes.
...should be able to implement some impressive and highly usable C# and.NET implementations completely independent of MS influence and support.
As soon as there is significant.NET based code around (if we are really that stupid), Microsoft will play its patent trump card, and either stall all that development, or start charging a license to use it.
The argument that ".NET is a standard" does not cover Microsoft's battery of patents. Mono is technologically a good idea, but it is a Microsoft trap, and it needs to be avoided.
Slashdot Mirror
On November 17, 2003, Microsoft introduced an open and royalty-free license and documentation for the Microsoft Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas including WordprocessingML, SpreadsheetML and Formtemplate schemas. The following license applies to the schema files and technical documentation and must be included in any copies that are made of the schema files and technical documentation. The Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas are available through the Download Center.
/ html/odcXMLRefLegalNotice.asp?frame=true.
n tlicense.asp.
-----
Legal Notice
Permission to copy, display and distribute the contents of this document (the "Specification"), in any medium for any purpose without fee or royalty is hereby granted, provided that you include the following notice on ALL copies of the Specification, or portions thereof, that you make:
Copyright © Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Permission to copy, display and distribute this document is available at: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/odcXMLRef
No right to create modifications or derivatives of this Specification is granted herein.
There is a separate patent license available to parties interested in implementing software programs that can read and write files that conform to the Specification. This patent license is available at this location: http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpate
THE SPECIFICATION IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND MICROSOFT MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, OR TITLE; THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE SPECIFICATION ARE SUITABLE FOR ANY PURPOSE; NOR THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH CONTENTS WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY THIRD PARTY PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS OR OTHER RIGHTS.
MICROSOFT WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO ANY USE OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE SPECIFICATION.
The name and trademarks of Microsoft may NOT be used in any manner, including advertising or publicity pertaining to the Specification or its contents without specific, written prior permission. Title to copyright in the Specification will at all times remain with Microsoft.
No other rights are granted by implication, estoppel or otherwise.
Let's take a closer look. On the legal notice page, we see that "The following license applies to the schema files ... and must be included in any copies that are made of the schema files ..." Thus, if you include one of their XSDs (schema files) in order to parse an Office document, then "No right to create modifications or derivatives of this Specification is granted herein."
That pretty much precludes even a BSD license. The "openness" of these schemas includes the ability to use it as Microsoft has defined them, not the ability to modify it as you see fit.
I call B.S. Columbus never wrote that.
Gee, that's a nice scenario for a thief. All s/he needs to do is to write a simple dialog with a certain title, and s/he can steal your passwords.
Come on people--this is f*cked up. Sampling a few seconds of somebody else's song, even if it *is* recognizable, and even if it is TheReallyHardPartThatTookYouTenYearsToMaster (c) is not a crime and should not require your permission.
There is a slippery slope here. What are we going to make illegal next? Collages?
If it "throws out 1/25000 of all legitimate messages" and if you are getting 10 legitimate e-mails per day, then you will be missing one legitimate e-mail every 2,500 days, or about every 7 years. I would be very happy to miss one legitimate e-mail every seven years to stop from having those 5-10 spams per day.
Aberdeen is in Texas, you insensitive clod!
In a massive, huge, prolonged test (I compared MSN and Google searches for the terms best browser and browser) I was expecting to see a bias toward Microsoft on MSN, and no bias on Google. While I did find the bias toward MS, I also found what I took to be a bias against Microsoft on Google!
MSN search for best browser:
- www.anybrowser.org/campaign
- www.microsoft.com/ie
- www.microsoft.com/windows/ie
- www.netscape.com
- www.mozilla.org
(Seems biased toward Microsoft)Google search for best browser:
- www.opera.com/
- www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/
- www.pcworld.com/reviews/ article/0,aid,110653,pg,11,00.asp
- www.theinquirer.net/?article=17382
- macslash.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/19/148223
(no link to a Microsoft or MSN site in the first 50 results)MSN search for browser:
- explorer.msn.com/home.htm
- www.mozilla.org
- www.microsoft.com/windows/ie
- www.opera.com
- www.netscape.com
(Gee, MSN appears first? Other than that blatant plug, it seems fairly reasonable.)Google search for browser:
- www.mozilla.org/
- www.opera.com/
- wp.netscape.com/computing/download/
- www.avantbrowser.com/
- lynx.browser.org/
(no mention of IE until the 11th entry--after Lynx for goodness sake--"It's the single most popular browser in the world!")Maybe these things will make artificial "Thump, Thump" sounds, just like some digicams that do an audible but synthetic "click" when triggered.
Great. At the funeral, Grandma has her hearing aid turned up and screams "Grandpa's alive! I hear his heartbeat!"
The point is that I bought albums because I wanted to hear all the tracks that never got airplay. So many of them were such great songs.
Interesting. Most people complain that they are forced to buy 11 tracks of crap just to get a single track that they like.
According to the RIAA, it should be.
If you received (or even had simultaneous access to) the source, it's your responsibility to provide it when you provide the binary.
It *is* your responsibility to provide the source, but you do not have to include it under section 3A. You can provide it under section 3B or 3C if you like. Providing the source "when you provide the binary" is an option, not a requirement, of the GPL.
Ummm no, yourself. You *do* have to release any tools or scripts you use to create the binary, with some exceptions (see section 3 of the GPL):
>> I and my classmates did the same thing.
> I'm guess you weren't an English major? :)
<pedant>
The first poster is grammatically correct. Separate the subjects: "I ... did the same," and "... my classmates did the same." Writing "Me and my classmates did the same," would be incorrect.
I'll take the high road and assume that when you wrote "I'm guess ..." that you were either trolling or you made a typo.
</pedant>
It is my right to protect my intellectual property from redistribution, public performance, and copying whether you like it or not.
You do not have the right to stop people from copying your work, in certain fashions. That is legal and allowed.
Until Copyright Law changes these are MY rights and you can't take them away.
Until Copyright Law changes fair use is MY right and you can't take it away.
Instead of disallowing DoubleClick cookies, edit your hosts file to change the address for the DoubleClick sites. These are the relevant ones that I've got in my hosts file--YMMV.
But I say again, boycotting anything TCG is simply pointless.
It has a very specific and dramatic point: to stop those who want to implement DRM using "trusted platform modules".
If TPMs become commonplace, then we won't be able to control our computers. I'm happy that you've got a benign computer that only controls access to your fingerprint files, but what if the programs that you cannot control are set to do things that you don't want them to do? Paranoia? Yes, but there are definitely societal pressures to go that direction, so I'm rebelling against them now, while I have a chance.
ActiveX itself doesn't offer any way to auto-install software without the user's agreement, unless the user changes the Internet Security settings.
AFAIK Mozilla never allows you to auto-install without a warning.
IE gets updated whenever a security flaw is found.
B.S.
Because of this news, I finally got off my @ss and installed the GIMP. I had been using Paint Shop Pro, which is good and all for what I want it for, but it ain't libre. Mozilla, Gaim, and GIMP. Now if I can just kick the Windows habit.
If you know the sites that a person visits, you can get a pretty good picture of what the person is interested in, and therefore, what advertisements he/she will respond to.
Look at your own browser history and see if you can figure out any patterns from it. It might tell you something about yourself. The $2 question is: would you want anyone else to know that?
God I love Mozilla! You want spyware free browser add-ons? Check MozDev's active projects.
Search-related projects on MozdevGoogleBar- Emulates the Google toolbar that only works in IE
Companion- Emulates the Yahoo! Companion toolbar in Mozilla.
Easysearch- Offers a search toolbar with more general coverage of many search engines.
ExPASybar- Searches the ExPASy database of biomolecules.
Mycroft- Collection of search plugins for Mozilla's sidebar search (formerly known as Sherlock)
Gimli- Another project to re-create popular toolbars, starting with a dictionary.
NeedleSearch- Allows users to search using search engines installed in Mozilla, or add a new search string to the toolbar automatically.
Pubmed- Searches the NLM/Medline database of articles and citations in the field of medicine.
Qlookup- Add Google search to the context menu
>> You don't have the right to go editing it [an artwork] to suit your own desires though and then resell the edited version for cash.
You're wrong. I do have the right to purchase a physical book from you and black out the "bad" passages, and I do have the right to resell it for cash. Not a copy of it, mind you--you still have the copyright.
I do have the right to my opinion that minutes 12.1 to 13.6 and 34.9 to 40.0 contain violence unsuitable for children under 18, and I do have the right to physically cut those minutes out of the tape I purchased from you and resell it for cash, just as I do have the right to sell you a $79 player which will automatically skip over those minutes.
As soon as there is significant .NET based code around (if we are really that stupid), Microsoft will play its patent trump card, and either stall all that development, or start charging a license to use it.
The argument that ".NET is a standard" does not cover Microsoft's battery of patents. Mono is technologically a good idea, but it is a Microsoft trap, and it needs to be avoided.
See
My Righteous Leader RMS says DRM is Digital Restrictions Management.