From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Apr 19 2003 - 15:36:58 MDT
Charles Hixson wrote:
>
> 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.
I generally don't use Microsoft software to create programs on
even Windows machines except for the OS. I usually code and
debug under emacs, cygwin, Java or C++ or Python or Lisp/Scheme
and tools like JSwat and Eclipse. I don't see any need to use
MS software in that loop and do not.
>
> 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 is one of many reasons that I do not and will not use XP.
> 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.
Which is of course absurd and should be laughed completely off
the market. The idea that my content is not mine to read and
use in any way I see fit simply because I used an MS or other
brand X tool to enter it is outrageous. I stay away from any MS
formats not already sufficiently useable with other tools as
much as possible. My content does not belong to MS. It is one
of the evils of DMCA to say or arguably imply otherwise.
> 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.)
>
It is illegal to display a copy of a license? Since when? On
what grounds would you be prosecuted if you did so?
I agree with your conclusion wholeheartedly.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 19 2003 - 15:40:15 MDT