1. RE: MS and ownership rights
joshua293 at EMAIL.COM wrote:
> As for me, give me Unix or give me ... err...., never mind.
Give me Linux, or give me BeOS 
2. RE: MS and ownership rights
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kat [mailto:gertie at PELL.NET]
Something strange is going on here...
> The terms of use of the Passport program and their email
> services gives them
> ownership of anything passing thru their computers. While
> this could have been
> argued in court for/against all email or internet providers
> (and employers *have*
> argued this in court and won), the small print you don't read
> when using MS email
> providers, or Windoze XP, puts the weight of law squarely in
> their court. From a web
> page:
I've looked at the moongroup story, read the comments posted, looked at a
couple of the linked stories, and finally read the terms of use at
pasport.com and hotmail.com. Now I have a few thoughts/questions about this
whole mess.
First, I think that it's being blown way out of proportion. The part about
MS's ability to do whatever it wants with your materials looks like people
not reading carefully. As Michael Sabal hinted, the Passport EULA says
nothing about this. It's all under the heading, "MICROSOFT'S RIGHT TO USE
FEEDBACK OR SUGGESTIONS YOU SUBMIT."
Now, from the hotmail agreement:
"MATERIALS PROVIDED TO MICROSOFT OR POSTED AT ANY MSN WEB SITE
Microsoft does not claim ownership of the materials you provide to Microsoft
(including feedback and suggestions) or post, upload, input or submit to any
MSN Site/Service or its associated services for review by the general public
(each a "Submission" and collectively "Submissions"). However, by posting,
uploading, inputting, providing or submitting your Submission you are
granting Microsoft, its affiliated companies and necessary sublicensees
permission to use your Submission in connection with the operation of their
Internet businesses including, without limitation, the rights to: copy,
distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, edit,
translate and reformat your Submission; and to publish your name in
connection with your Submission."
I suppose you could read something sinister into some of that, like the
ability to edit. However, if they couldn't 'copy, distribute, etc,' then
that would defeat the whole purpose of the service. Yahoo
(http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/) has virtually identical terms. Why
isn't anyone boycotting Yahoo?
In short, I think that the way companies have to spell out legal rights gets
all screwed up when people read the agreements. Is that an indictment on
the legal system of the US (where most of these sites are based) or the
education system of the US (where most of the complaints originate)?
Secondly, many of the claims made by articles don't seem to have any basis
in the terms. For instance, where is there any mention of anything
regarding, to quote Chuck Mead of moongroup.com, "the fact that the license
is clearly attempting to gain the rights to *ALL CONTENT WHICH PASSES OVER
ANY SERVICE THEY PROVIDE*. " Well, OK, they are attempting to gain the
rights, in a way. Otherwise, they couldn't transport the information. The
only possible saving grace here is that the page says that the terms were
last updated 4/4/01, and maybe all that stuff was there before.
Next, let's examine the stuff about software:
Kat wrote:
>So if you develop anything remotely commercial with Eu, and write it on the
MS XP
>OS, or send it thru one of the MS email providers, or the MS satalite
wireless
>hookup, you may find MS knocking on your door demanding royalties from you
for
>using your own program! Chances are fairly good that they will claim
ownership of
>this email too, since some of you use hotmail, etc.....
This scared me, too, so I looked at the text:
"SOFTWARE AVAILABLE ON THE PASSPORT WEB SITE
Software (if any) that is made available to download from the Passport Web
Site, excluding software that may be made available by end-users through a
Communication Service, ("Software") is the copyrighted work of Microsoft
and/or its suppliers. Your use of the Software is governed by the terms of
the license agreement, if any, which accompanies or is included with the
Software ("License Agreement"). You may not install or use any Software that
is accompanied by or includes a License Agreement unless you first agree to
the License Agreement terms. For any Software not accompanied by a license
agreement, Microsoft hereby grants to you, the user, a personal,
non-transferable license to use the Software for viewing and otherwise using
the Passport Web Site and service in accordance with these Terms of Use, and
for no other purpose provided that you keep intact all copyright and other
proprietary notices. All Software is owned by Microsoft and/or its suppliers
and is protected by copyright laws and international treaty provisions. Any
reproduction or redistribution of the Software is expressly prohibited by
law, and may result in severe civil and criminal penalties. Violators will
be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible. WITHOUT LIMITING THE
FOREGOING, COPYING OR REPRODUCTION OF THE SOFTWARE TO ANY OTHER SERVER OR
LOCATION FOR FURTHER REPRODUCTION OR REDISTRIBUTION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.
THE SOFTWARE IS WARRANTED, IF AT ALL, ONLY ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF THE
LICENSE AGREEMENT. You acknowledge that the Software, and any accompanying
documentation and/or technical information, is subject to applicable export
control laws and regulations of the U.S.A. You agree not to export or
re-export the Software, directly or indirectly, to any countries that are
subject to U.S.A. export restrictions."
Please point out the part that says any software you write and then email
over hotmail belongs to MS. Let's see, they say that anything you d/l from
passport.com belongs to MS. That sounds reasonable--it's their site, after
all, why would you expect to find anyone else's software there?
Hmmm, well, there's the part that excludes software made available through a
communication service. This would include hotmail. So this entire
paragraph seems to apply only to MS software. You may disagree with their
license, but I don't think you can bitch that they've stolen any rights from
you regarding anything you've written.
> Windows XP will integrate the Windows authentication system
> with the Passport
> authentication system, so a user can log onto Windows XP a
> single time and also
> be logged onto Passport
This doesn't sound as bad as it's made out to be. If I used passport, I'd
probably view it as a convenience, although I might not use it. It sounds
to me that you can have your windows password/profile linked with passport.
But I don't see that this is a mandatory thing. And given that MS really
isn't claiming to steal your work when you don't use XP, I can't see the
jump from "I use XP" to "all my work are belong to MS," as many seem to be
saying/believing.
>http://www.moongroup.com/stories.php?story=01/04/02/0156291
>(additional info on the web page)
Kat, I understand that you'll never be a passport user, and I respect your
firm security concerns, but I also think they should be based on fact, and,
unfortunately, this doesn't appear to be. I also think that if this were
really what many are making it out to be, it would have made major media
outlets (at least Washington Times or O'Reilly Factor), instead of being
confined to Linux boards.
Matt Lewis
3. RE: MS and ownership rights
sephiroth wrote:
>Give me Linux, or give me BeOS
You should probably go with Linux. Last week BeOS announced that they would
run out of money some time in the second quarter.
-- David Cuny
4. RE: MS and ownership rights
okey. i've got rh6.1 AND beos pe. heheh...you oughta get it before it's
gone...free.be.com
David Cuny wrote:
> sephiroth wrote:
>
> >Give me Linux, or give me BeOS
>
> You should probably go with Linux. Last week BeOS announced that they
> would
> run out of money some time in the second quarter.
>
> -- David Cuny
>
>
5. RE: MS and ownership rights
David Cuny wrote:
> You should probably go with Linux. Last week BeOS announced that they
> would
btw, that's Be
