Tempest in a tabloid...
Oct. 18th, 2001 05:59 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexpgpWell, not really a tabloid... it's Linux magazine. I got the October issue and apparently, the magazine's choice to accept advertising from - of all outfits - Microsoft has rubbed a number of people the wrong way.
The magazine published a number of letters on the subject, ranging from snotty ("...please spare your few remaining subscribers a pathetic editorial reply in your next issue. Everyone can see that you have obviously sold out. Former Customer.") to good natured ("Isn't that Microsoft ad in your magazine a little like putting a tampon ad in Esquire?") to supportive.
One letter contained a
The magazine published a number of letters on the subject, ranging from snotty ("...please spare your few remaining subscribers a pathetic editorial reply in your next issue. Everyone can see that you have obviously sold out. Former Customer.") to good natured ("Isn't that Microsoft ad in your magazine a little like putting a tampon ad in Esquire?") to supportive.
One letter contained a
[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<a [...] href+"http://www2.linuxjournal.com/articles/currents/0033.html">') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]
Well, not really a tabloid... it's <i>Linux</i> magazine. I got the October issue and apparently, the magazine's choice to accept advertising from - of all outfits - Microsoft has rubbed a number of people the wrong way.
The magazine published a number of letters on the subject, ranging from snotty ("...please spare your few remaining subscribers a pathetic editorial reply in your next issue. Everyone can see that you have obviously sold out. Former Customer.") to good natured ("Isn't that Microsoft ad in your magazine a little like putting a tampon ad in <i>Esquire</i>?") to supportive.
One letter contained a <a href+"http://www2.linuxjournal.com/articles/currents/0033.html" target="_new">link</a> to an article in the <i>Linux Journal</i> that contained an item I apparently missed a few months ago.
It seems that back around June-July, Microsoft released a beta version of key .NET software, the Mobile Internet Kit, that includes what would appear to be what the article calls "patently anticompetitive and exclusionary licensing restrictions aimed squarely at Microsoft's latest target: free software."
The restrictions in question are in an End User License Agreement (EULA) that requires developers to not use free software tools<sup>1</sup> to develop Mobile Internet software; it also requires them not distribute developed software with free software programs<sup>2</sup>. According to Microsoft, free software is "potentially viral software", that could "infect" Microsoft's software or give some third-party rights to Microsoft's intellectual property.
Gimme a break.
The author, Bryan Pfaffenberger (an Associate Professor at the University of Virginia) maintains that Microsoft's explanation is absurd and concludes that Microsoft's position on the GPL can be best described in one word: deceptive.
Funny how that word keeps cropping up in certain contexts.
Cheers...
[1] Quoting the EULA, free software "includes, without limitation, software licensed or distributed under any of the following licenses or distribution models, or licenses or distribution models similar to any of the following: (A) GNU's General Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library GPL (LGPL), (B) The Artistic License (e.g., PERL), (C) the Mozilla Public License, (D) the Netscape Public License, (E) the Sun Community Source License (SCSL), and (F) the Sun Industry Standards License (SISL)"
[2] "Recipient's license rights to the Software are conditioned upon Recipient (i) not distributing such Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with Potentially Viral Software [including GPL-licensed software]; and (ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in whole or in part"
The magazine published a number of letters on the subject, ranging from snotty ("...please spare your few remaining subscribers a pathetic editorial reply in your next issue. Everyone can see that you have obviously sold out. Former Customer.") to good natured ("Isn't that Microsoft ad in your magazine a little like putting a tampon ad in <i>Esquire</i>?") to supportive.
One letter contained a <a href+"http://www2.linuxjournal.com/articles/currents/0033.html" target="_new">link</a> to an article in the <i>Linux Journal</i> that contained an item I apparently missed a few months ago.
It seems that back around June-July, Microsoft released a beta version of key .NET software, the Mobile Internet Kit, that includes what would appear to be what the article calls "patently anticompetitive and exclusionary licensing restrictions aimed squarely at Microsoft's latest target: free software."
The restrictions in question are in an End User License Agreement (EULA) that requires developers to not use free software tools<sup>1</sup> to develop Mobile Internet software; it also requires them not distribute developed software with free software programs<sup>2</sup>. According to Microsoft, free software is "potentially viral software", that could "infect" Microsoft's software or give some third-party rights to Microsoft's intellectual property.
Gimme a break.
The author, Bryan Pfaffenberger (an Associate Professor at the University of Virginia) maintains that Microsoft's explanation is absurd and concludes that Microsoft's position on the GPL can be best described in one word: deceptive.
Funny how that word keeps cropping up in certain contexts.
Cheers...
[1] Quoting the EULA, free software "includes, without limitation, software licensed or distributed under any of the following licenses or distribution models, or licenses or distribution models similar to any of the following: (A) GNU's General Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library GPL (LGPL), (B) The Artistic License (e.g., PERL), (C) the Mozilla Public License, (D) the Netscape Public License, (E) the Sun Community Source License (SCSL), and (F) the Sun Industry Standards License (SISL)"
[2] "Recipient's license rights to the Software are conditioned upon Recipient (i) not distributing such Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with Potentially Viral Software [including GPL-licensed software]; and (ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in whole or in part"
