[Am-info] Microsoft moves to comply with DOJ settlement deal

[Geoffrey]

Roy Bixler wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 07:01:49PM +0100, Jeff Wasel wrote:
> 
>>This came over a bit ago, courtesy of Computerworld. I strongly suggest
>>using the link within the story to M$' press release. It's rather disturbing
>>reading for a couple of reasons. First, they are getting royalties for the
>>material they release to competitors, etc. It seems to me they should have
>>to do this gratis, given that they appear to have escaped a fine; the second
>>thing is the APIs will also be fee-based, and lastly, there is a digital
>>rights provision in the referenced SPs that allows M$ access to your box for
>>what ever reason! This was confirmed on the list and through the Register,
>>and to no one's surprise, not mentioned by M$ in this release. I cannot
>>accept any argument for IP rights in this case. For the most part it is old
>>technology anyway, and moreover, could almost be viewed as an "accessory" to
>>the crime! Fees my ass. It is unbelievable at this stage of the game they
>>are still being rewarded for bad behaviour, let alone being able to access
>>your machine via some questionable EULA "rights"... UGH!
>>
> 
> That seems pretty suspect.  Just what do they mean by "starting at $5 *per
> server*"? 

Read the Microsoft doc very carefully.   It says, and I cut and paste: 
"Licenses will be available for as little as $5 per server."

I'll bet you won't find ONE that is 'as little as $5.'



-- 
Until later: Geoffrey		esoteric@3times25.net

I didn't have to buy my radio from a specific company to listen
to FM, why doesn't that apply to the Internet (anymore...)?