| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
GotDotNet Workspaces goes public beta | |
|
||
| Time: 15:22 EST/20:22 GMT | News Source: GotDotNet | Posted By: Chad Myers | ||
|
GotDotNet Workspaces provides a dynamic online environment where professionals and students alike can collaborate on software projects without the barriers created by geographical or network boundaries. GotDotNet Workspaces provides free services to .NET developers including online source control, bug tracking, message boards and more. We're currently in beta, so we encourage you to create a Workspace or view current projects from the list [on this page]. To summarize, GotDotNet is like SourceForge, but for the .NET community (and not Unix-centric). You can create new projects, manage them, track bugs, release binaries and source, check-in and check-out in a Visual Source Safe-like web interface and collaborate with other developers working on the project. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 173 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:32:22 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 9/18/2002 3:34:04 PM |
|
This is so cool, I'm stoked!
Apparently there's a licensing issue though, if you look at the first page of projects, some yahoo is going off about it. I wonder if he's right or not. |
| #2 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 9/18/2002 3:38:14 PM |
|
daz - He's right... I went through that license and it's terribly flawed.
I don't understand why I should grant to Microsoft the right to sell, rent or lease my work, or the right to sublicense my work... when I am not allowed to post commercial projects to the site. That says to me "Microsoft can make money off your work... but you cannot." They are going to get a lot of shit for that one, and quite frankly they deserve it. By postingYour Stuff, You grant to Microsoft, under all of Your intellectual property and proprietary rights the following worldwide, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty free, fully paid up rights: (1) to make, use, copy, modify and create derivative works of Your Stuff; (2) to publicly perform or display, import, broadcast, transmit, distribute, license, offer to sell, and sell, rent, lease, and lend copies of Your Stuff (and derivative works thereof); (3) to sublicense to third parties, including the right to sublicense to further third parties; and (ii) You agree You won’t commence any legal action against Microsoft or any Participant or Visitor for exercising any of these rights. Second, You also agree that You will not use the Workspace for any commercial purposes whatsoever. And last but not least, You agree that Microsoft may remove at any time, without notice, the Workspace or any posting to it. This post was edited by sodablue on Wednesday, September 18, 2002 at 15:38. |
| #3 By 20 (143.166.84.51) at 9/18/2002 3:55:46 PM |
|
Indeed. If that reads like I think it does, they are in for a load of shit. I personally sent them a piece of my mind and scolded them.
This is an outrage and huge slap in the face to the .NET community who have been eagerly awaiting the arrival of GotDotNet workspaces. It's a shame it'll sit virtually unused now because of this highway robbery. |
| #4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 9/18/2002 4:48:09 PM |
|
Jason...
Your first point: a cop out. I see no reason why beta technology would also necessitate "beta" legalities. The legal issues will ultimately be the same no matter what stage of development the workspaces are in. Nevermind if the technology is beta, if the legal issues are not worked out, it is premature to be doing so. It's also begging foregiveness for more restrictive policies for an immature and near-useless ("don't upload anything REAL yet") beta when you should actually be able to issue less-restrictive policies at this stage. Second point: All of your products and technologies have license agreements that restrict their use in conjunction with "viral licenses" (are you sure you aren't in the legal or PR departments?). And you are only providing a collab space, right? What license could possibly affect MS simply by hosting it? You aren't talking about code interaction so this fear is ridiculous. Clicking a submit button will not tie MS's technology to the GPL (let's get it out in the open): either get off it, get a new argument, or explain in detail how .Net code could be affected by a "viral license" (without violating existing MS licenses) and then how this code can cause "infection" affecting other MS technologies simply through providing a space for it to reside. Otherwise, I can't take you seriously. "After we do that, we can then offer an agreement that grants copyright back to the original poster on terms that we're aware of and we know won't place us at legal risk for hosting IP on our servers." Why should you get to dictate the terms of an individual's copyrights as long as the IP doesn't violate any existing MS EULAs? You say you aren't grabbing IP rights but you are expecting people to issue their rights to you and then allow you to issue them back on YOUR terms? Uh, huh. Your third point: we know what the goal is... There are numerous examples working in fine order now that you are using as a model to build your own copy. Having an admirable goal is not a defense for this inexcusable license and incomplete development, particularly when others have already accomplished the goals without such controversies. As you describe your goals, you talk more about the legal issues and keeping your job than actually building technology to accomplish your goals. Doesn't sound like a chance "to have fun and do cool stuff." my point: I have no problem with the idea of forbidding or requiring a certain type of license to use your site; that is as basic as a store owner denying service to whichever customer they please. But, this doesn't justify these ridiculous terms--if that is the true intention, state which licensing is required or which licensing is not permitted. In the meantime, it sounds not only like a bad argument, but a scare argument... of the worst kind, the kind that has created a lot of controversy for MS for the last year or so, an argument that I (personally) do not buy at all and find pathetic, and an argument that (I think objectively) could only be put forth by and serve Microsoft's purposes. It doesn't come close to explaining why you are grabbing committers' IP rights, something that supposedly MS is a staunch protector of. On a final note of hypocrisy, what about these terms is not VIRAL? Many contributors, many types of projects, many types of license go in; what comes out is either exclusively owned by MS or is regranted under a license determined to be acceptable by MS. Sounds infectious to me. This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, September 18, 2002 at 18:03. |
| #5 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/18/2002 4:51:35 PM |
|
We interrupt this newsgroup for a special announcement.
Let the record show that the Microsoft shills, Microsoft bigots, Microsoft lovers, or "softies" daz, sodablue and BobSmith (sorry, I was watching an XML presentation or would have posted sooner) did in fact take serious issue with an understood policy of Microsoft Corp. Let this forever show that the previously mentioned can in fact think for themselves, are not the subjects of Microsoft brainwashing and do, in fact, attack Microsoft when Microsoft is in error. We will now return to your regularly scheduled postings (minus the name calling) already in progress. |
| #6 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 9/18/2002 5:03:38 PM |
|
#4, 5: Jason:
First, I appreciate you posting here. It's good to see Microsofties visiting ActiveWin! :) Second, I appreciate your time in posting to address this very serious issue. Thirdly, I realize you're not a lawyer, and that you, nor I could possibly understand such things, but your explanation is patently incorrect. Tell whoever explained that to you that they don't know jack about corporate licensing law. My brother and father are both lawyers that dabble a little in business and corporate law and they said that this license is completely rediculous, not to mention parts of it are completely unenforceable such as the part where the licensee can't sue MS for persuing the rights granted in that license (don't ask me to explain, I don't know, that's just what they said). I understand that this is a beta license and MS is trying to protect themselves from liability for damage or lost data during the beta period (which is completely acceptable), but to remove everyone's rights is rediculous. At any rate, the point about this being beta is the key one. I certainly hope that by release time, the license allows people to choose their own software rights and give up no intellectual property to Microsoft by default. Anything else would be completely unacceptable and essentially make the Workspaces worthless. That would be truly unfortunate since they look to be very high quality and I am really looking forward to using them and contributing! |
| #7 By 2 (24.54.153.247) at 9/18/2002 5:44:10 PM |
| Jason, e-mail me, we'd like to interview you about your work. bobstein@activewin.com |
| #8 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 9/18/2002 6:27:31 PM |
|
Jason, I'm sorry if I said anything offensive previously, but seriously, this last post of your's makes it even worse.
You try to dismiss the whole issue as for fun, for play--but that doesn't dismiss the fact that this grants Microsoft copyrights to IP which could be/is sellable product! And I see you take 5 paragraphs to say this is fun, we're being safe without addressing the fundamental question: Clicking a submit button will not tie MS's technology to any license; explain in detail how .Net code could be affected by a "viral license" (without violating existing MS licenses) and then how this code can cause "infection" affecting other MS technologies simply through providing a space for it to reside. A basic fundamental question to what you provided as the only real argument for this license; whether or not you are a lawyer, you or someone should be prepared to answer it if you want to jump on a discussion board to defend your position. |
| #9 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 9/18/2002 7:20:23 PM |
|
""Clicking a submit button will not tie MS's technology to any license"
Are you a lawyer sodapuke? Can you prove this beyond any doubt in front of professional lawyers and a judge? Why should one risk so much just your word?" "Risk so much"? Why doesn't someone step up to the plate and name a single license that would do so? Particularly one which would not get itself laughed out of court--for example, yes, I suppose I could create a new license that says upon my submitting my code to GoDotNet, all code on that site is now mine, but this wouldn't hold water. No, I am not a lawyer, but I do have a very strong understanding of the law and frequently discuss these issues with friends who are lawyers. And he did implicate existing licenses, so it seems it would be easy to name them and point out the clause which is problematic. Jason provided this explanation, yet it doesn't make any sense to me--all I asked for was clarification and fact. "BS. You can't expect him to make statements that he has no qualifications or ability to back up. He's doing whats best for him... covering his arse with a temporary solution and handing it off to MS's legal department to work out. Unlike your favorite GPL ponytails he isn't doing this for free." Actually, if he can't explain it, he should have stayed quiet. As you state, not I, he is "covering his arse." That does nothing to mollify me, that scares me more. "For kicks he should quibble over matters neither you nor he have the qualifications to discuss (meaningfully anyways)? Whatever!" He already explained that he does have the resources of MS Legal working for him, yes? Or rather he is working for MS Legal, no? His original post had all the glory of legalese straight from their justifications. "Bull!, he said don't put anything commericial or anything that could have comercial uses." How can anything and everything possibly be devoid of value? If MS has the rights, they have the rights! This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, September 18, 2002 at 19:45. |
| #10 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 9/18/2002 7:33:04 PM |
| JWM, yes, a bit disingenuous of Jason to say they are a 10 person team just having fun when they have Microsoft legal working for them, will be providing code licensed to Microsoft, and all submissions' copyrights will be transferred to Microsoft, huh? |
| #11 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 9/18/2002 7:53:09 PM |
|
Jason... Hey thanks for posting here and sharing the other side of the story.
You can pretty much ignore sodajerk, as others pointed out, he's going to find fault with Microsoft no matter what, and he fabricates issues to support his bias. But as daz and I pointed out, that license is ridiculous. I can understand the lawyers wanting to protect against any weird lawsuits relating to unintentional distribution. i.e. you upgrade servers and technically you are copying the software. that sort of thing. As JWM points out, Sourceforge's license also contains very similar language but not quite to the same extreme. With respect to text or data entered into and stored by publicly-accessible site features such as message boards and bug trackers ("SourceForge.net Public Content"), the submitting user retains ownership of such SourceForge.net Public Content; with respect to publicly-available statistical content which is generated by the site to monitor and display project activity, such content is owned by SourceForge.net. In each such case, the submitting user grants SourceForge.net the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sublicensable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable approved license. Where I had issues was the talk about selling, renting, leasing, sublicensing to third parties and so forth. I'm perfectly willing to grant the rights to distribute, but not to resell or relicense my work. Even if it is beta, I would most likely wish to use it for a real project of sorts. I have a couple in mind that a friend and I have been toying with, that would be fun. Honestly, I also don't understand even the sourceforge license. My hosting provider doesn't require me to sign a license granting them rights to redistribute whatever content I upload to my website. I don't know where that legal nonsense came from, but I believe it's insulting to my intelligence. Also, why worry about the GPL at this point? If people are stupid enough to give away their rights with the GPL, then let them. Just because you are hosting it doesn't put you at any risk, unless what they are uploading they don't have rights to.(i.e. piracy) Even if the next screen gives me back some rights... I stopped at that first page, because I'm not going to agree to that license. Take your lawyers out back and rough them up a bit, they deserve it. Then have them come back and write a reasonable license. BTW, if you think our reaction was bad... This will hit slashdot. It'll take a few days as they are generally unaware of what happens in the computing industry, but once they hear word of something negative regarding Microsoft... They'll be on it like flies to honey. Frankly, if I were Microsoft I would pull that site down right now until you got the licensing resolved, as it's going to do nothing but generate more ill-will. This post was edited by sodablue on Wednesday, September 18, 2002 at 19:53. |
| #12 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 9/18/2002 7:59:17 PM |
|
BTW, did I mention that I do think the idea is really super cool?
I have a sourceforge account and do have my windows netrek client partially hosted out there. But the blasted website is so unix based that it's a fricking pain in the kazoo to use realistically. For the record I hate CVS, and maybe that has a large part to do with it. Anyway, as a result I haven't updated my sourceforge content in about 3 years. But the concept is cool, and a site which had a good user interface would be a great thing. |
| #13 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/18/2002 8:07:24 PM |
| JWM (#15) I'm skimming this thread, so this may have already been answered. I'd say that Microsoft owns gotdotnet.com since there is a Microsoft copyright at the bottom of every page. Further the domain is registered to them. |
| #14 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 9/18/2002 8:12:21 PM |
|
Ah, please, Jason, to say you are number 157,359 on the legal team's list is nothing... I would have expected you to be around 469,324 on the list... Has more than 2 lawyers worked on some of your licensing issues? Did they get paid more than you? Was their work more important to MS management than this beta? Trying to dismiss the level of input, and then trying to use that as I further excuse to explain why this is such a bad license, does little to negate the fact that your little "for fun" group exists solely for Microsoft's benefit.
soda, a bit weak to try to dismiss me when I think I'd be safe to infer that you yourself see the "GPL-fear" as a pathetic excuse for this provisioning. Maybe I'm being a little tough on Jason, but this is my main point--that's a pathetic excuse, one of those excuses that other people within Microsoft and MS Legal would think is brilliant. An excuse that clearly Jason wants to distance himself from now. I don't see anything wrong with that clause in the SourceForge Agreement--it's only regarding pieces of code transmitted through extremely public channels--i.e. discussion boards, chats, etc... It's easy to see where the need for protection is here. SF is distributing it by displaying it on their pages. If someone is discussing some code, how do I do this, how do I do that, and someone willingly provides example code out in the public, these snippets are going to end up in different applications. By assuming the rights to these types of code transfers, SourceForge is protecting itself from the original IP generator suing them for another person using that code in some piece of software. The source still owns the IP, SF just has rights to use it as well. If you look at the other clauses, it says everything you want: 1. code submitted is still under the license it was first created under "Use, reproduction, modification, and other intellectual property rights to data stored in CVS or as a file release and posted by any user on SourceForge.net ("Source Code") shall be subject to the OSI-approved license applicable to such Source Code, or to such other licensing arrangements that may be approved by SourceForge.net as applicable to such Source Code. " 2. SF protects itself from code which gets distributed in the public domain as mentioned above [soda quoted this clause above] 3. further, private areas can have their own terms as submitted by the originators of the code to SF as they see fit "With respect to Content posted to private areas of SourceForge.net, i.e., private SourceForge.net development tools or SourceForge.net Mail, the submitting user may grant to SourceForge.net or other users such rights and licenses as the submitting user deems appropriate." 4. the above applies to content as well as IP "Content located on any SourceForge.net-hosted subdomain which is subject to the sole editorial control of the owner or licensee of such subdomain, shall be subject to the OSI-approved license applicable to such Source Code, or to such other licensing arrangements that may be approved by SourceForge.net as applicable to such Content. " Nothing about giving up copyright so that it can be "cleansed" and then reissued (thanks) back to the original creator of the IP. This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, September 18, 2002 at 20:21. |
| #15 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 9/18/2002 8:33:49 PM |
|
No, Jason, I don't think it has to be a big thing... but you are certainly softening your own position and skirting the issue. For example, in this little timeline you provided--when did MS Legal get involved to develop the terms? Did you know what they were before they were posted? Can you admit that your viral threat is a joke and that hosting code cannot infect your licensed code? If you don't admit it, can you point me to a license or a hypothetical scenario which would do so? Did you come up with that explanation or did the legal guys? (This last question is of particular interest because the clause in no way appears to be motivated by license contamination.)
Maybe you can answer these questions and keep your job, maybe not. If you do, cool--if you can't, I'm not surprised. But that's my point after all. By the way, it's one of those seemingly clever little dismissals to say,"If I want to keep my job", but I've always treated that as I sign. Guess what, it's your job--that brings the baggage of your boss, the compromises you've made, etc... (You do know who you are working for after all, right? and what your job is?) You can't make a stand at the same time that you are passing the buck. Seriously, that's meant as advice; don't use that phrase in the future. I can be a "jerk" because I'm anonymous nobody. You ARE representing someone (even if informally and off the record), and you cannot dismiss that. This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, September 18, 2002 at 20:43. |
| #16 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 9/18/2002 8:47:19 PM |
|
"I've tried to address all of your concerns..." No, you haven't answered a single one of my clearly stated questions directly, Jason. Whether or not you think I'm a crank, how could I not think "[you are] either unable to tell [me] the truth due to corporate policy or that [you're] doing some kind of slimy double-speak?" Particularly, when you invited this discussion on a public internet discussion board. This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, September 19, 2002 at 01:29. |
| #17 By 116 (66.69.198.173) at 9/18/2002 9:02:52 PM |
|
SodaJerk shut the heck up man. Sometimes your comments are good as they liven up the debate and get me to think of the other side of the position.
Here you are dead wrong. Shut up. Jason, thanks for posting here and I appreciate all the hard work you have done for GDN. Tremendously usefull and an excellent resource. Things will get worked out, I have no doubt. There are legitament concerns here and I have no doubt you will fix them. |
| #18 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 9/18/2002 11:33:09 PM |
|
Jason, Soda is being a little harsh, but I know I don't really feel like this issue has been addressed.
I realize you're not a lawyer and you don't command MS's legal team, but MS and you MUST know that GotDotNet is very big in the .NET community and these Workspaces are HEAVILY anticipated in the .NET developer community. These issues really must be addressed ASAP before anything else continues. IMHO, the longer you go with that kind of license, the more you'll piss off the community and drive a stake through the heart of the eagerness to believe in MS in their .NET initiative. Many .NET developers really believe .NET is a new way of thinking and practice for Microsoft and it's a sign of a kinder, gentler Microsoft. If you go forward with this, you ruin what little hope we all had in fostering a Java-like community around Microsoft .NET. It will also cast doubts as to MS's intentions with regards to projects like Mono. MS evangelists and apologists (myself included) believe that MS is taking a benevolent role with Mono and waiting to see what happens, knowing it'll probably be good for all in the long run. Please don't ruin all that with this. If your superiors don't understand the importance of GotDotNet in the .NET developer community, just put a link on your home page asking everyone to email a comment email address and watch the comments flood in. ======== This rant brought to you by.... lol No need to respond, I just want to state that I think MS should take this more seriously. While it may just be a small project inside MS, it makes a huge impact to everyone in the community. This post was edited by daz on Wednesday, September 18, 2002 at 23:46. |
| #19 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/18/2002 11:48:10 PM |
| I'll second that daz. I'll also agree, that the comments will flood in. Quite a few of us just love to talk, so give us the opportunity and we'll go on and on and on... |
| #20 By 5444 (208.180.245.190) at 9/19/2002 12:21:08 AM |
|
Wouldn't the legalese be better to not which types of licensing is ok which are not.
We as developers all know that GNU is a viral license. So ban its ussage in the group. Use the more community friendly BSD license. or a more clearly defined ono. But don't tell me I lose my rights to my IP in one part and say in "primary license" that I get those rights back. I would ahve to agree With Soda Jerk in some of his comments, and that doesn't occur that often in this forum:) I agree with DAZ and Bob, that the fostering of the developer community is the most important thing and look forward to this being taken care of quickly. GotDotNet is a great Community Site, and is a central spot in my stops on learning the framework. I would hate to lose that. El |
| #21 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/19/2002 12:38:53 AM |
|
How strange, a Microsoft employee responding to customer feedback. They do care. : - )
Sodajerk nice? Hmm, I'd like to read a few examples of mean. Perhaps you mean nice because he really thinks he has a point, whereas not nice would be those who knowingly lie in their arguments. |
| #22 By 3339 (67.119.193.214) at 9/19/2002 1:10:08 AM |
|
ahh, yes, sodablue and kunkun dismiss me; Red, and STA get on me... when everyone else including Jason (and soda) agrees with me. Ha.
Jason, Red would like to think I would bow to Steve Jobs and do anything to burn your eyebrows off... He says I'm a sophist and then he throws in Apple and presumes my reaction... In fact, I don't think you have control over or any idea what your company is doing (if you know what I mean), and had hoped to see that you could and would speak for yourself... and be able to represent your company too... That's hard. Hell, I'd never get the chance to jump all over an Apple Team Manager, but I would love to. (They're not allowed to speak, never mind out of line... except for a few of the new OSers at work... but I digress). Yes, we all agree this isn't there yet. But I don't get all soft for, "All will be well," never mind consider getting near it, or even giving it clicks. And you haven't spoken to the fundamental issue, which I don't even believe you support, which is why I hoped you could speak for yourself. I can't think this is "temporary" like STA or drool all over you like Red: "Things will get worked out, I have no doubt." Baloney! Maybe I'm not a lawyer, but I understand that you are asking people to engage in a legal agreement (which actually says it can change and we have to accept that...) but you know it's inappropriate. I haven't even begun to express my "crank" ideas, although daz is heading towards them--I thought I was just addressing what you yourself were arguing; heck, my jabs... I focused them on the job line because that is a peeve and you brought it up... and I do see the conflict in putting yourself out as a representative of a company, of a defense that's inexcusable but still the party line. Come on, no matter how incidentally this project arose Microsoft Legal/Management/et al was aware of it... It's not a new concept... It's a development collaboration community... Everyone must immediately see its parallel to SF as a community, site, enterprise, strategy and try to understand/confront the implications. This bumps right up on Open Source software right away--and I'm not even talking about licensing, I'm talking about the philosophy of collaborative development. I feel bad for the guys around here who try to prop up their views by citing Mono and Rotor (what are they?). We're supposed to believe that MS is serious about them? That there's value to being ECMA approved if all web-based collab projects belong to MS? That MS's licenses aren't the most viral of all? That Microsoft is the Guardian of "Intellectual" Property Rights, but no one has them but MS? That even if a GPL project could be in .Net code (which it can't) that simply by being hosted on a MS web site all of Microsoft's (and our) valuable IP would be tainted. Come on... Isn't all this stuff fun? "cleanse" me, I need "cleansed"... I can't get these licenses off of me!!!! This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, September 19, 2002 at 03:40. |
| #23 By 3339 (67.119.193.214) at 9/19/2002 1:27:12 AM |
| But you aren't allowed to answer my questions, huh? ;-) Must suck/be fun to have no moral compass (unless you consider disc boards like this, your own views, and a boat load of Microsoft lawyers and managers tugging at each other a moral compass)! |
| #24 By 3339 (67.119.193.214) at 9/19/2002 1:38:06 AM |
|
Man, I dig... I *know* you **can't**, but I trust you *will* ... when they let you have an opinion! ;-) Come on, even if you don't know sh1t--which I don't think is true--you've got to tell the lawyers every once in a while, "You're @ssholes!" If only to give them some perspective... or to be irksome like me!
;-) , ;-) This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, September 19, 2002 at 01:51. |
| #25 By 8273 (4.47.67.8) at 9/19/2002 2:10:27 AM |
|
sodajerk, I'm with you. I am sick and tired of this and other "free" Microsoft software that restricts my rights. Right now, I have some MS guy with a gun pointed at my head forcing me to upload all my code and IP to their servers, giving them all rights to steal my work. I mean, when will it end? M$ software (.NET) running on M$ server software (IIS) running on a M$ OS (Windows), how much more evidence of a monopoly do you need?
I have been visiting this web site for over a year, but this was the final straw, and I felt that I really needed to post. Like I said, sodajerk, I am with you and I faithfully believ... Oh no, that M$ guy just cocked his gun, telling me that I had to upload more code. I better go now... |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 173 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:32:22 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
