Take a look at this buried in the end user agreement (EULA) of FrontPage 2002 (The paper dealy that normally accompanies the actual CD-ROM in the original box)-
The article goes on to say that a spokesman from Microsoft says that it’s not designed to squelch speech, but is meant as a copyright infringement tool.
Whatever… it’s still there in the form quoted above.
And what about it? Amazing, eh?
What’s even more amazing is that while discussing this topic some time ago about Microsoft (I use a lot of their stuff, but it doesn’t make me happy about their practices) another poster came in and commented about the user agreement. The poster, as far as I could tell, essentially pointed out that if you agree to the terms set up by MS in the EULA, you have to agree with it regardless.
Pathetic, but at the time, it was a good argument for what we were discussing. But, I’m wondering, how far are we willing to allow these agreements to go in terms of control? I mean, you can’t disparage MS or any of its subsidiaries!?!
Jesus Microsoft, how much control do you want or need?
Yet again, the ‘always pushing the envelope’ Microsoft doesn’t fail to disappoint.
And since I commented in another thread that I’d offer more sites to the article mentioned here (A tiring habit around here. That is, “Site please?” isn’t so bad as it is irritating, but “You got more sites than the one you mentioned? That site is bullshit” is pretty lame).
About all I can say is, I can’t find other online articles discussing this topic. On the other hand, I’m not looking too hard because I have no reason to believe this article is bullshit. About all I can add to whether or not this is real or not is to have you call Microsoft for yourself. It’s free and everything, and you might as well get it from the source.
You gotta cite for that spelling of cite ?
[sub]sorry[/sub]
Not that is such a load.
Copyright would surely be infringed just as much if the software was used in connection with a site that praised Microsoft to the high heavens.
I suspect that to be the case. I cannot however attest to the legality of that. Essentially I guess you could dictate that a product you create can only be used in the way in which you dictate. Anyone rememeber Gregor’s VI Clippit from userfriendly.org ? Agreeing to a EULA caused quite a catastrophe there and whilst tongue in cheek it certainly highlighted the fact that the vast majority of customers will never read an EULA and will have no idea of what they agree to. I’m guessing MS could in theory attempt to enforce such petty distinctions but I dare say they are occupied sufficently with piracy issues.
Smart guy that Damhna chappie. Too lazy to reformat an old post and he likes to quote himself, but still smart.
Now hold on the Damhna, I’d be the first person to be appalled if I found out others out there where taking their grammar lessons from me… I freely admit that it sucks. But where down there on the ‘Submit Reply’ button does it say that my post is going to be graded and held against me for life?
It doesn’t, you pecker-head!
It’s a close as I can get to it being right without getting completely anal retentive and cracking open the APA book, or whatever the hell it is, and analyzing my posts.
Besides, It’d give me a headache.
-snort-
(Oh, and the pecker-head comment? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Listen, I’ve been dying to use pecker-head in a conversation lately and I haven’t found a way to work it in yet. I might as well throw it in here, now, since I know that you meant your post in jest… much like I mean my beloved pecker-head comment).
*Again, I’m not being serious with that at all, if anyone in the world is getting all riled up about it. Dokey?
Anyrate-
When is a site also a cite but not a cite but a site?
damn… you’re all just now bitching about the EULA in that piece of shit program??? get with the times… this has already been lambasted on about 6000 other web-logs. [sub]well, ok, not really 6000, but at least 4[/sub]
As soon as my head stops spinning from that,I’ll take issue with the pecker-head comment.
Just don’t expect it anytime soon. In a month or two just be prepared for an out of the blue pit thread titled
“PECKER HEAD ? I’ll give you pecker-head”
[sub] please note the absence of an “r” at the end of “you”…praise all that is good and holy I previewed this time[/sub]
Frankly, I think that clause is pretty cool. The funny thing in this topic is people who develop and distribute hatefulness against a company using that companies products.
Sounds like Microsoft’s just wants to avoid its copyrighted and trademarked content being used on any site that might embarass it, or being linked to something that might get Microsoft into legal trouble. That seems pretty reasonable to me.
Well, I’m inclined to agree with you in general, Bill, but I can see how someone might like FrontPage and have no problems using FrontPage, but yet want to publish an essay about how MSNBC has biased reporting, or how Expedia really screwed you over when you tried to buy plane tickets from them, or whatever.
It is my pleasure to be generally agreed with. And my desire to be generally agreeable.
Very good point. In the sense that in olden days Smith Corona didn’t try to keep journalists from writing anti-SC articles on their typewriters.
But on a practical point, I think what MS really wants to do is make sure people don’t embarass them or harass them using their products. If they’ve ever invoked that clause (or if they ever will), I’m sure it’s more to hamper agressively anti-MS sites, not generally agnostic journalists.
Also on a practical note, if MS ever did try to revoke an honest journalists product license because of a bad review, I’m sure the outcry from the journalism community would be immense. And I’m sure sure that MS knows this and is wise enough to never try it.
You really should read that article I linked to. At the bottom of the page is this note-
So, it may be a simply case of MS trying to cover itself from copyright infringement, but MS does have a history of pulling out all the tricks in going after something they don’t like.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they tried it with this clause too. And you’re right Bill H, I doubt they’ll go after big fish… they’ll focus on the smaller prey. But in a way, that’s even more bothersome to me- MS going after the small prey probably won’t get noticed by the bigger guys. On top of that, the little guy isn’t going to have much resources or cash to go after MS and their bullshit policy.
By the way, I’m surprised that you, Bill H are actually siding against MS here. I always thought of you as a champion of the developer.
Either I’m looking at the wrong page, or what you’re commenting on has more to do with copyright infringement than it does with what I’m talking about. And in terms of copyright infringement, again, I don’t know much about it, but it seems that your site, or the site you linked to, resembles the MSN website.
If that’s what you mean, then I actually agree with Microsoft. You, or whoever, shouldn’t be allowed to copy it.
But that’s all moot to me anyways. I was simply talking about Microsofts attempt to stop or stiffle ‘disparaging comments made against Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services…’.
Brother CNote, thanks for your kind words, but I think I didn’t explain myself very well. I’m actually on the dark side (as usual). My stance:
a) I approve of the clause. In fact, I like it.
b) I think it’s silly to make an anti-MS site and use MS products to do it. Don’t protest Nike while you’re wearing their shoes.
c) There is danger that MS could abuse this clause, but
d) In the real world it’s highly unlikely that they will
