Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 09:47 AM EDT

Authored by: feldegast on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 09:48 AM EDT

So they can be fixed



---

IANAL

My posts are ©2004-2007 and released under the Creative Commons License

Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0

P.J. has permission for commercial use. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Winter on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 09:49 AM EDT

Let us all remember those who will be fired for this N/T



Rob



---

Some say the sun rises in the east, some say it rises in the west; the truth

lies probably somewhere in between. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: MathFox on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 09:55 AM EDT

Other Open Source and Legal issues in this thread. If you know HTML, make a link

by following the instructions in red under the comment editor (and select HTML

mode for the post).



---

If an axiomatic system can be proven to be consistent and complete from within

itself, then it is inconsistent. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 09:58 AM EDT

I have a couple of observtions:



1. Notice the category for the Ubuntu download on the Windows marketplace web

page:

Downloads> Utility Downloads> System Downloads> Driver

Downloads> BIOS & System Update Downloads> Ubuntu Desktop



Since Ubuntu isn't a BIOS update, Microsoft must be saying that ubuntu is a

"System Upgrade" to MS Windows. That's a hoot. It's worth saving this

page for poserity just to show your friends that one.



2. Since they are only providing a link to the CNET web site for the download,

I'm assuming that they can claim that they did not distribute? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 10:07 AM EDT

But ... but ... I was told for years that the GPL was "Free" and there

are "No limitations"?

Or was that only for future users after I redistribute, not for me? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Jimbob0i0 on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 10:22 AM EDT

I saw this yesterday on digg...



One of the funniest things was the compatibility listing - every version of

windows from 3.1 up to 2003 and beyond ;) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: daWabbit on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 10:39 AM EDT

Someone in my LUG got a copy there. He's copying it for those of us who want a

copy from a "special" or "unusual" source. :)



Jack



---

"There ain't no reason I should work this hard when I can live off the chickens

in my neighbor's yard" -Bruno Wolfe [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 10:53 AM EDT

"Uninstaller included: No" I believe Ubuntu and other Linux distributions include several uninstallers: fdisk, parted, etc. ---

"While world domination is a nice fantasy, a Free computer is essential."

--artp, Groklaw, 2007-06 [ Reply to This | # ]



...the part about no limitations: - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 11:03 AM EDT

Authored by: Wardo on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 10:56 AM EDT

How are items added to this Windows Marketplace page? I would expect a

submit/review process, or total control by MS as the options. Hard to believe

that a non-MS user would be able to post a link there. (Or they won't be able

to do so in the future...)



---

caveat lector...

Wardo = new user(lawyer = FALSE,badTypist = TRUE,badSpeller = TRUE); [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 11:01 AM EDT

Authored by: PSaltyDS on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 11:11 AM EDT

A search for "Ubuntu" turns up no results anymore, but they still have results for "Linux". These include LSP Basic:



"LSP can help a user to migrate from Windows to Linux automatically.LSP will automatically transfer all shared files on Windows server to Linux server directly. And all permission property still preserved (for example, a directory "C: lsp" which is shared as "LSP", and only read by Adam and written by Emma). LSP also provides a File Manager, which looks like that on Microsoft. The most important function is that it will allow user to configure the above file sharing permissions on this File Manager GUI with mouse!LSP will automatically transfer all users/ passwords/ groups to Linux. And it will also rebuild relationship between group and users! Windows clients can login to same domain without changing domain name, password, and username."



Hmm... migrate from 2000/XP to Vista for brazillions, or to Linux with a $65 utility that Microsoft is pushing...?



:-)



---

"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced." - Geek's Corollary to Clarke's Law



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 11:23 AM EDT

Does this make Microsoft even more of a distributor of Linux than they already

are? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 11:24 AM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 11:26 AM EDT

Did a search for Ubuntu on Micro$oft and zero:



"No results found for ubuntu"

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 11:33 AM EDT

Are they now bound by its conditions? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: iabervon on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 12:15 PM EDT

I think the "Limitations" item is the limitations on downloading it,

not on what you do with it afterwards. All of the things seem to have "No

limitations" aside from ones with a lock icon, which don't seem to have

that line in the details at all. I don't think their setup even considers the

possibility that someone would distribute their downloaded file instead of

distributing the link to the download.



And, for that matter, the Ubuntu download is probably a GPLv2 clause 3b

distribution with the offer embedded, in which case passing the disc around the

office is a legal 3c distribution. If you don't modify the ISO, I don't think

you can fall afoul of the GPL by distributing it. (Actually, Ubuntu's

distribution is probably 3b, and CNet's is probably already 3c.) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 12:28 PM EDT

Ubuntu itself is not GPL since it is not an application but a distribution.



Of course, some very important components of Ubuntu are GPL (the kernel, the GNU

tools, ...) but even more are distributed using another licence (e.g. Xorg,

Apache, ...).





[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Simon G Best on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 12:45 PM EDT

Some commenters have been asking if Microsoft's apparent inclusion of links to Linux-based distributions, and the like, constitutes distribution on Microsoft's part. But I'm wondering something else, but not entirely dissimilar. I haven't (yet) looked at that Windows Marketplace site (or whatever it's called) in any detail, but I was wondering if it now means that Microsoft have promoted and encouraged distribution of various FOSS works that are distributed under GPL with all that that entails and implies. And I'm imagining the following kind of scenario. Imagine Microsoft suing a FOSS user for alleged patent infringement. Imagine that Microsoft's claimed patent is allegedly infringed by (use and/or installation of) a piece of software that Microsoft promoted and encouraged the distribution of, under the GPL, on one of its own websites. (This isn't a matter of Microsoft actually distributing the software itself; merely promoting and encouraging its distribution.) Imagine the FOSS user pointing to Microsoft's promotion of that software's distribution, and arguing that since Microsoft chose to promote its distribution when it was being distributed under the GPL, Microsoft must therefore have consented to such GPLed distribution, with all that that implies and entails. Therefore, the user may then argue, it was entirely reasonable for that user to conclude that Microsoft had no objections to subsequent use of that GPLed software. Microsoft, the user would argue, implicitly licensed such use by promoting and encouraging the distribution of that software under the GPL. I'm not a lawyer, but would arguments along such lines work? Have Microsoft now blown their patent FUD most spectacularly? Have Microsoft blundered so badly as to lose the patent war before even firing their first, real shot? Can we now declare victory? ---

"Public relations" is a public relations term for propaganda. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 12:51 PM EDT

As I understand it they now are obliged to make the source code available to

anyone who might have downloaded the binaries from them. What a hoot. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: webster on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 01:12 PM EDT

..

Wow!



1. They have just compromised every patent they own. Since their patent

threats against Linux have been unspecified, they will have to show any alleged

patent thief that the patent is not in Linux.



2. Is this distributing Linux? It certainly is aiding and abetting. Street

hustlers are doing felony time for doing less than this. If you jump between

determined buyers and sellers and help them make a deal, you are in the

distributing business. And they can't say they didn't get any money. Who pays

money for downloading free software?



3. You can be sure that every Linux distributor downloaded from this referral

or will get a copy from someone who did. It adds a layer of defense. It is

something more significant for the Monopoly to overcome. It is another reason

to deter them from going to court against Linux.



4. It is fabulous counter to FUD! The Monopoly itself says it is Perfect!

They link to it. It must be okay. Monopoly salesmen will have to choke this

down.



5. Add the criminal concept "entrapment" to the Monopoly conduct.

Why would they praise Linux as perfect, link to it, and then attack those who

follow their suggestion as violating their patents? They are promoting the

supposed harm to themselves. It reeks of waiver and estoppel here.



6. The Monopoly is not going to get away with saying they don't know what an

EULA or GPL is.



7. There are other distributions of Linux referenced to this day. They have

probably been there for a a long time. Clearly the Monopoly has been trifling

with the GPL, by this Marketplace site and by their Novell, Xandros, and

Linspire deals. They are going to plead ignorance and lack of intent. It is

not going to fly given their destructive, antitrust, monopoly motives.



8. As long as no government stands up to the Monopoly and the retailers play

ball with them, nothin' is gonna change.



---

webster

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 01:26 PM EDT

Reported yesterday on Slashdot.



Dell refused to sell to a small business; a Dell computer with Ubuntu installed.

But would sell a Dell with Ubuntu installed for home use.



But would not take this person's credit card - to buy a Dell/Ubuntu computer for

home use - by using a credit card with the small business name on it!



And there's no deal with Ubuntu and Micro$oft (and (Dell)?



Sure ...... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 01:37 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 01:38 PM EDT

This isn't a story. They link to a place to get the software. The info on

their page is from Download.com. they probably have an agreement to

automatically add content from Download.com (and Tucows is often the home for

software on the marketplace as well) and this made it in because it was listed

in the wrong place. They had the license listed as free because it's listed as

Free on Download.com.



It sounds like this is more a case of why Download.com has it listed there and

why it's listed as a free license. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 01:59 PM EDT

The concept of the license type being "free" seems ambiguous and/or

purposely misleading. An actual description of the license(s) that apply to the

software, or saying something like "OSI approved" would be much more

accurate, especially considering the kinds of things the other operating systems

would have for "License Type". [ Reply to This | # ]



Multitude of licenses. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 04:50 PM EDT

Authored by: smesplay on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 02:22 PM EDT

Here are some other offerings from windowsmarketplace.com: Linux stuff and netcraft.com info about windowsmarketplace.com Site report for www.windowsmarketplace.com ---

Linux is anti-competitive?

is that anti-competitive as in making the other guy work harder?

or anti-competitive as in Microsoft? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 02:45 PM EDT

Authored by: BobinAlaska on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 02:57 PM EDT

For grins, I decided to download Tux Walks form Windows marketplace. It asked

me to sign in with my Windows Live ID and password. This is probably for the fee

software, but why ask for it for free software?



---

Bob Helm, Juneau, Alaska

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: BassSinger on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 03:25 PM EDT

So, here I am mildly curious how many people have lost their jobs today over

this little gaffe.



---

In A Chord,



Tom



"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created

them." -- Albert Einstein [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: maco on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 03:32 PM EDT

Yesterday I bought a Microsoft wireless keyboard and mouse, and, except for the

unused buttons on the top, I must say the quality is very high.



The only problem was the documentation, which said I must load some software

before plugging into the USB - with Ubuntu it just worked - so I don't

understand why they provided that CD at all.



I'm sorry I'm not in a position to comment on Microsoft's other fine products,

but from first hand experience their keyboards and mice are first rate, and I

can only assume that quality is displayed through out their entire product line. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: xtifr on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 03:48 PM EDT

Technically, the GPL contains no limitations. What it contains is limited freedoms! (Limited, many would argue, only in the sense of "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose starts". But that's a side issue.) Compared to a copyrighted work with no license, the GPL (and other licenses in Ubuntu) has no limitations. The only things it forbids are things you have no right to do in the first place. There is (at least) no End User license in Ubuntu. Of course, compared to a public domain work, it definitely has limitations. Which is why these debates come up again and again. But it's certainly possible to argue that the claim that Ubuntu's license has no limitations is technically correct, even though it could also be argued to be misleading. (And I think we all know that MS is a master of the technically-correct-but-misleading.) ---

Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to light. [ Reply to This | # ]



FUD - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 05:13 PM EDT FUD - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 05:53 PM EDT no, perspective - Authored by: xtifr on Saturday, June 23 2007 @ 04:34 PM EDT

- Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 05:13 PM EDT

Authored by: kberrien on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 04:33 PM EDT

Nice to see Microsoft apparently condones its alleged 235 patents in Ubuntu! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 04:38 PM EDT

Everyone seems to be of the opinion that someone at Microsoft posted the link.

I'm not sure this is a valid assumption. I think the Microsoft Windows

Marketplace is a web site provided by Microsoft for it's "partners" to

market THEIR products for use with Windows.



I suspect that someone got "partner" status and put the Ubuntu link

out the as a joke. I suspect that they didn't expect as much play as they got

and I doubt they adequately anticipated the response from Microsoft. :)



IF this was posted by a MicroSoft employee, I suspect that "employee",

in this case, is probably past tense... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 06:52 PM EDT

The article misses the point, as do most of the comments.



On the site in question "No limitations" refers to functional

limitations, or eliminated features.



For example, if a demo version of a non-open sourec commercial word processor

was available on this site, the author of the word processor might disable Save

or Print or limit the max document to 3 pages. And then in the limitations

field it would say "No Save. No Print. Maximum document length = 3

pages".



Or if there was game, but you could only play the first 3 levels on the free

download the limitations field would say something like "Limitations: You

can only play first 3 levels in free version. You must pay to get the other 97

levels."



And if on the other hand, the author didn't disable any features in his program,

then the site would say "No limitations"



This is exactly the same methodology and terminology. used on most of the other

shareware/commercial/demo download sites.



It has nothing to do with the license the software is under. It simply refers

to the functional limitations, if any, present in the free download of the

software as opposed to fuller/paid/CD/other versions. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Michelle Readman on Friday, June 22 2007 @ 09:59 PM EDT

The story here sadly isn't that MS are directly promoting linux, but rather it

is a cautionary tale of what happens when you directly use feeds without

checking their contents.



After having a look around, it seems that the marketplace mostly gets it's

listings directly from a number of major program hosting sites. Windows Live

Marketplace is simply an aggregator service



The fact that the original entry was on CNET makes sense, since this is

mentioned as one of the better automatic sources to have hosting your program.



What's interesting, however, is a reply post's title I caught whilst skimming.

Apparently simply linking to DeCSS can count as distributing it. If that's

actually the case, then... snickering at MS would be well justified :P [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 23 2007 @ 06:21 AM EDT

No joke, it's all over the news and I don't find any articles to contradict

these articles.



For me I'll just keep using Vector Linux and I'm not going to worry about it.



What do you make of this current news item? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 23 2007 @ 09:47 AM EDT

Authored by: Mp3rocks on Saturday, June 23 2007 @ 11:28 PM EDT

I thought "Eek!" was an utterance reserved for spottng a mouse. Must have been a

Microsoft mouse.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Eek! - Authored by: jmc on Sunday, June 24 2007 @ 07:07 AM EDT

Authored by: afruss on Sunday, June 24 2007 @ 07:20 AM EDT

Hi, I did a search on the net for the description used on Microsofts site, and it seems to be a exact copy of what is on download.com's server Ubuntu Desktop 7.04 . I also found it on Tech republic too Ubuntu Desktop (04-desktop-i386) So it could even have it's origin at Canonical itself. So I would presume that Microsoft got the software as a RSS feed (or Excel spreadsheet ... hur hur hur) and just pumped it onto their web-site. This would be a classic blunder, not intentional. So, tinfoil hats off guys. Andrew. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 24 2007 @ 09:11 AM EDT