From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Thu Apr 17 2003 - 09:27:51 MDT
Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Charles Hixson wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you are right. Of course, the only way to get the right to
>> use MSOffice is going to be to install it under MSwindows, and
>> MSwindows is becoming less and less friendly to having other OSs on
>> the same computer. So you are going to be needing to analyse the
>> software while using a legal copy of MSWindows. This means your
>> tools need to run under MSwindows. And MSOS is going to ensure that
>> only approved programs are allowed to execute....
>>
>
> Since the main bit of interoperability needed or at least strived for
> today is the ability to read/write MS Office formatted files, there is
> no real necessity to do this work on MSWindows.
>
> If MS ever seriously attempts only allowing programs it approves of to
> execute when I am running Windows then I will stop running Windows
> ever that very same day. As a programmer myself I will be damned if I
> will ask Microsoft if I can run my own programs or beg them for
> permission to sell them to other people who run Windows.
>
> - samantha
I was perhaps a bit too exterme. You will probably always be able to
run "non-trusted" programs, if you jump through enough hoops. And
almost certainly any that you create on your machine using registered
copies of MS software will be recognized as "trusted for this machine".
But there will be legal, rather than technical, requirements that
prevent you from using those tools to analyse their software. (And
technical restrictions that make it very difficult.) The effect will be
the same, but the illusion of freedom will be less thoroughly disrupted.
Also, if I read the XP EULA correctly (IANAL), MS is already claiming
ownership of any files created with it's programs (sort of... I don't
think it's claiming to own the contents), and it's claiming the right to
"add, copy, modify, delete, or remove" any of them without notice to the
owner of the system. This was *probably* put in so that they couldn't
be sued when their auto-update system scragged a computer, but now that
it's there it leads to all sorts of interesting interpretations. E.g.,
I believe that under the DMCA it's technically illegal to "use a
circumvention measure" (e.g. Open Office) to evade the (sorry, I can't
remember the language) to read your own files by anything by an MS
program. This is under my understanding of the XP license. (I don't
own it, and wouldn't agree with it, and it's illegal for anyone to
produce a copy for display, so all I have to go on are brief snippets
taken out of context. This means I could likely be wrong. But I see no
reason to give them benefit of the doubt. They've got a bad history to
live down.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 17 2003 - 09:34:57 MDT