in reply to Microsoft is against Perl!?

So I was curious and started reading the license and a couple sections really disturbed me which I'll paraphrase

  • (c) Open Source. License rights are conditioned to not distribute the software using "Potentially Viral Software"
    • At which point they point to any free, open source (e.g. Linux) or similar distribution license.
    Actually the way they phrased it, was that using gcc or any tool that is not a MS product is prohibited.
    Having worked for an Anti-virus company, that is just so ironic coming from the company that has enabled more viruses than any other.

    Disclaimer section: < Note this is a beta product, so it's more poking at lawyers than MS in the following >

  • They disclaim all responsibility to items such as LACK OF VIRUSES, RESULTS, WORKMANLIKE EFFORT, and LACK OF NEGLIGENCE.
  • "Also, there is no Warranty, Duty, or Condition of title, quiet enjoyment, quiet possession..."
  • "The Foregoing shall be limited to actual damages incurred by you based on reasonable reliance up to the lesser of the amount actually paid by recipient for the software or <bold>FIVE DOLLARS (US$5.00)</bold>,

    • After reading that I had to make sure that wasn't a joke site...

    update: Added a disclaimer to the disclaimer section. I agree with tilly in that you get what you deserve with Beta SW, but I had to point out some of the wording in there.

    Replies are listed 'Best First'.
    Re (tilly) 2: Microsoft is against Perl!?
    by tilly (Archbishop) on Jun 21, 2001 at 16:07 UTC
      While reading the disclaimers, note that this is a set of disclaimers on a software development kit labelled beta. You should not be using this for production. Period. And if you do, then Microsoft should not be liable.

      So I don't mind those terms. If they remained when the product shipped (and some likely will) then I would mind them. But not now.

      But the anti Open Source games are a different kettle of fish. I often say that I like using the right tool for the job. However if Microsoft wants to ban the use of things like Emacs, CVS, Perl, Python, Ruby, cygwin, VNC, and so on, then the right tool for me is going to be very unlikely to be from Microsoft. That kind of restriction is simply not acceptable.

    		[reply]
    Re: Re: Microsoft is against Perl!?
    by kevin_i_orourke (Friar) on Jun 21, 2001 at 12:24 UTC

      Some of those disclaimers may be invalid or even illegal in the UK. There are some consumer rights you can't sign away.

      I'm not a lawyer though, so I may be wrong.

      --
Kevin O'Rourke
    		[reply]
    (tye)Re: Microsoft is against Perl!?
    by tye (Sage) on Jun 21, 2001 at 18:28 UTC
      "Potentially Viral Software" At which point they point to any free, open source (e.g. Linux) or similar distribution license. [...] Having worked for an Anti-virus company, that is just so ironic coming from the company that has enabled more viruses than any other.

      I think they mean "software with viral licensing" such as the GPL which, if you use their source code in your product, can claim to force you to distribute your source code with your product. I say "claim" because there are lots of ways that a term of a license can fail to stand up in court.

      I don't think it has anything to do with the more common term "computer virus" (which is usually used these days as a synonym for "malware").

              - tye (but my friends call me "Tye")
    		[reply]
        That's probably true, and if pressed they would probably explain it that way, but the way it is presented now would put across the idea that their software is clean, and all other software can potentially destroy your system.
    		[reply]
        "Potentially Viral Software"

        It's so funny to hear this from the company like Micro$oft, which stupid default settings for MS Word and Outlook (allowing to run macros by default) provided for actual and dangerous viruses like ILOVEYOU, which cost millions of dollars to fix...

        It's about time to split monopoly, but I hope to at least 4 parts!

        pmas

        To make errors is human. But to make million errors per second, you need a computer.

    		[reply]

    In Section Meditations