Subject: Re: Microsoft has copyright on AbiWord, thanks a lot Dom
From: Dom Lachowicz (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Apr 02 2001 - 16:38:34 CDT
I have a two word response to this, which I think is rather appropriate:
>From: Aaron Lehmann <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: Microsoft has copyright on AbiWord, thanks a lot Dom
>Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:53:46 -0700
>GEEZ WE KEPT TELLING YOU NOT TO USE MICROSOFT'S STUPID EMAIL SERVICE
>----- Forwarded message from Bryan-TheBS-Smith <email@example.com> -----
>From: Bryan-TheBS-Smith <firstname.lastname@example.org,email@example.com>
>Subject: [Copyright/Licensing] "Dual-copyright/licensing" of your IP
>withOUT your permission
>Date: 2001 April 02
>[Copyright/Licensing] "Dual-copyright/licensing" of your IP withOUT
>USING A PASSPORT.COM-ENABLED SERVICE WILL DUAL-COPYRIGHT/LICENSE
>YOUR ORIGINAL WORK
>I just want to throw this out for *OFF-LIST* discussion. I am
>currently writing an article on the new licensing agreement at
>Microsoft's Passport.COM. What most people don't realize is that if
>you use MSN, Hotmail, Expedia and, in some cases, just MS
>IE/Outlook, you have _already_agreed_ to this license. Why? In the
>case of MSN, Hotmail and Expedia, your passwords are stored on
>Passport.COM (remember when Microsoft went down in late 1999 because
>of their expiration of Passport.COM?). I am still researching the
>depth of Passport.COM's interaction with MS IE itself (seperate from
>these services), and other Microsoft and non-Microsoft,
>The problem? In a nutshell, any outgoing information, software
>and/or services of your original copyright/license/IP are "dual
>copyrighted/licensed" to Microsoft c/o this new agreement. This can
>be _very_dangerous_ from the standpoint of free software
>development. Worse yet is the fact that no one currently knows to
>what extent the Passport.COM licensing agreement applies, but it
>seems all MSN, Hotmail and Expedia users are subject to it, possibly
>all users of MS IE as well.
>GPL DOES NOT OVERRIDE YOUR COPYRIGHTS (NOR YOUR ABILITY TO ASSIGN
>THEM TO OTHERS)
>Now you may think the GPL (and/or other GNU licensed works like the
>LGPL, FDL, etc...) protects your work. What you may not realize is
>that Copyright Law is the _ultimate_ law. The software that cracked
>the encryption (really "uglification") and revealed the follies of
>popular "Internet Filtering" software were perfect examples. The
>software was released GPL, but then revoked later. How? Because
>the creators ultimately have "all rights reserved" to their
>copyright, and can revoke any license at any time (like they did
>when the popular filtering software vendors bought the rights).
>When you post, upload or otherwise transmit through a
>Passport.COM-enabled service, you are effectively giving Microsoft
>a non-exclusive, "blank 'copyright' check" to use your work.
>Now one way you can "protect" your free software/works from being
>submissive to this "hole" in Copyright Law is to assign all rights
>to the Free Software Foundation. In fact, this is exactly what the
>FSF recommends you do with any GNU licensed work. If you have not
>done so already, consider doing this with any GPL, LGPL, FDL or
>other GNU-licensed work that you do not plan to "dual-license"
>yourself or other entity.
>IS THIS AN "ANAL" STANCE? MICROSOFT "REALITY CHECK":
>Now before you think I'm going off an being "anal" on this, or
>screaming "the sky is falling," realize the following:
>1. Many companies are looking for new avenues of revenue and the
>"total forfeit" or "dual-copyright/licensure" of your
>copyright/licenses/IP is nothing new.
>2. Microsoft (among others, even non-Windows vendors) have been
>shown time and time again to be all for #1, and abusing the rights
>of others in the name of profits.
>3. *BIG ONE*: Anyone who has interviewed with Microsoft, or
>visited the Microsoft campus knows that Microsoft's future goals
>_include_ the revenue stream of _charging_you_ to even see your own
>4. *ANOTHER*: Microsoft has identified "dual-copyright/licensure"
>as a key method to "bypassing" the "GPL virus."
>5. *MOST IMPORTANTLY*: Microsoft is currently the biggest lobbyist
>of the US government, and expends the most in legal costs of any
>American company. Lawyers are difference between something just
>being just "unethical and not legally binding" and "unethical but
>quite legal binding and quite enforcable."
>#5 is what makes the Passport.COM licensing agreement the most
>scary, even though it is nothing new in some circles.
>WHAT SHOULD THE FREE SOFTWARE COMMUNITY DO TO COMBAT THIS?
>Other than avoiding these services and any other that use
>Passport.COM (which will only get harder and harder as .NET makes it
>presence), there are some _real_issues_ to doing _anything_ on the
>Internet that will require our action. At least two key issues need
>to be addressed (with possible solutions):
>1. "Identify" users who are using these services when they contact
>your web site, archive, CVS repository, etc... They need not only
>be informed of these issues -- but they need to "sign" a "counter
>agreement" that they agree to the policies of our site, archive,
>repository, etc... which either "prohibit" uploading from services
>where there is such an agreement and/or somehow put the
>responsibility on the consumer and/or service to NOT allow such
>"dual-copyright/licensure" rights to be applicable to those original
>works. "Identification" is where the difficulty may come in, but
>searching for a cookie or other known "resource" on the client
>system should provide us with a good indicator that the client is
>using these services. Our service then will "redirect" them to the
>proper page with the agreement (and kick them off if they do not).
>2. Draft new licenses, or create "addendeum" to existing licenses
>that explicitly target these other agreements and render them either
>null and void, or somehow limit their application to our projects.
>This will be most difficult as the creators of these "agreements"
>have been smart enough to make their copyright/licensure
>"non-exclusive" -- which allows the creation of a
>"dual-copyrighted/licensed" version they can use (whereas an
>"exclusive" agreement would not hold up in court).
>Again, these are serious issues that need to be addressed ASAP. I
>hope the free software community pulls together and does its due
>dillengence to combatting this serious violation of our IP and our
>ability to control who, what and how it is copyrighted and/or
>LINKS TO MORE INFORMATION:
>As a follow-up, please take the time to read the following URLs:
>The Register.COM article:
>Troubleshooters.COM new copyright and other articles:
>LEAP Thread (first article in thread):
>-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
> OSS/GNU/Linux Participant, Advocate, Packager and Developer
>P.S. Feel free to forward this to others, provided you are
>courteous enough to not cross-post a single message among several
>lists (i.e. please send one message per list or two).
>Bryan "TheBS" Smith chat:thebs413 @AOL/MSN/Yahoo
>"Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem"
> -- Nicholas C. Weaver
>----- End forwarded message -----
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 16:38:37 CDT