Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Microsoft FrontPage License Prohibits Anti-Microsoft Speech

Posted by CmdrTaco on Thu Sep 20, 2001 11:43 AM
from the you-gotta-be-kidding dept.
Microsoft
According to this story running at Info World, the license from FrontPage 2002 contains a clause that says 'You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services ...' An unfortunate clause that will prevent me from my long term plan of migrating Slashdot to Frontpage (cough). There's lots of other nastiness in this article too. Can anyone find that specific clause? Can anyone find the EULA itself? Update: 09/20 18:10 GMT by T : According to reader bteutsch "FWIW, the clause appears only in the EULA agreement for use of the FrontPage Logo, not with the product or server extensions license."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Microsoft FrontPage License Prohibits Anti-Microsoft Speech 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Microsoft is actually contributing to standartization on the net, as less users will use FrontPage. Great!
  • They just seem to be getting more and more arrogant. Thankfully, I don't use Frontpage, but I've never seen a license for a tool that says you can't criticize the makers of the tool !!!

    It's like putting a "license" around the use of a hammer saying you can't build a sign that protests the hammer's maker.

    Incredible !

    • Yes, unbelievable. Unbelievable that anyone would believe it. According to this page [microsoft.com], you can't use the Frontpage logo on a site that disparage Microsoft.

      • I wouldn't worry about it, stuff like this wouldn't hold up more than a second under First Amendment scrutiny.


        Oh, I know! I'm glad the First Amendment was there to save us from the DCMA! Can you IMAGINE the implications of THAT being passed?
      • I wouldn't worry about it, stuff like this wouldn't hold up more than a second under First Amendment scrutiny.

        uhhh:

        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

        Microsoft != Congress
        (...last I checked, anyway. If that changes, time to fall on my sword.)

        Really, the EULA is a voluntarily entered contract between the end user and Microsoft, and is not to be confused with a law passed by Congress. One might compare this clause of the agreement to an NDA, in that both place restraint upon your speech, but neither is unconstitutional.

        The defense against this kind of practice is not to complain and wave the First Amendment, but to remove Microsoft from the position that allows them to make these demands.

  • Maybe a good thing? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mjh (57755) <mark@@@hornclan...com> on Thursday September 20 2001, @11:49AM (#2325703) Homepage Journal
    IANAL, but isn't there something in contract law that says that if you put a clause in a contract that is illegal, then the contract is null and void on its face. For example, I can't put a clause in a contract that says that you will become my slave if you agree to the contract. Slavery is illegal and no contract is allowed to supercede that (AFAIK).

    So the fact that this exists, does it not render the license restrictions that MS is putting into place null and void? In other words, has MS just ceded their rights to control Front Page?

    (Please chill on the flames. If I knew what I was talking about I wouldn't have had to ask!)

    • I dunno, man.

      I'd like to think you were right on this one, but you've got to remember that NDAs are apparently legal, so speech obviously isn't always gaurenteed.
      • NDAs are apparently legal

        I wouldn't be so sure... I've heard they (and non-compete upon exiting a company and several other common contracts) are not very east to defend in court. YMMV, IANAL, etc...

        --
        Evan

    • Most contracts have a severability clause in them that states that if any part of the contract is found to be invalid or illegal, it doesn't invalidate the rest of the contract.
    • The word you need to look up is "severability".

    • Re:Maybe a good thing? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Jerf (17166) on Thursday September 20 2001, @12:11PM (#2325923) Journal
      'IANAL, but isn't there something in contract law that says that if you put a clause in a contract that is illegal, then the contract is null and void on its face. For example, I can't put a clause in a contract that says that you will become my slave if you agree to the contract. Slavery is illegal and no contract is allowed to supercede that (AFAIK).'

      'So the fact that this exists, does it not render the license restrictions that MS is putting into place null and void? In other words, has MS just ceded their rights to control Front Page?'

      IANAL, but you don't need to be a lawyer for this.

      First, as one person pointed out, licenses invariably have clauses that say if one part is found invalid, then only that part is invalidated, not the whole thing. Second, even if what you said is true, then what is nullified is the license. That doesn't mean Microsoft has "ceded" their rights to FrontPage, it means that you no longer have the right to use it.

      This is why contracts have those clauses. For any non-trivial contract, it would not be good that the whole contract was nullified for obvious reasons, for either side.

      Finally, I am surprised this wasn't noticed in a reply, but in states where the UCITA or compatible varient has been passed, this clause is likely to be completely legal, merely a varient on the non-review clause.

  • Is that legal? If I buy a Chevy, I'm allowed to paint 'Chevy Sucks' on it and drive it to the Chevy Sucks 2001 convention.

    If I buy a pair of Nike shoes, I'm allowed to wear them while running in an 'Anti-Nike Slave Labor' 5k run/walk.

    If I buy MSFP, then I can use it to create 'Frontpagesucks.com'.

    D
    • You license it. The copy you're running belongs to Microsoft. Since they own it, they have a perfect right to limit the way you use it.

      Which is why they love DMCA, UCITA, et. al. and why we despise those laws.

  • Complete BS. (Score:4, Flamebait)

    by Skyshadow (508) on Thursday September 20 2001, @11:50AM (#2325711) Homepage
    Jesus, I wonder how long before this "feature" makes it into other MS products -- Internet Explorer anyone?

    I can't believe that Microsoft [The remainder of this post has been sanitized by MS Internet Explorer. Please go back about your business, and remember that Microsoft is only trying to conduct legitimate, non-predatory business. You have been warned.]

    • should be fine. after all, it's not like there is a browser monopoly or anything... <sarcasm>why shouldn't 99% of the people get their information gently sanitized by either MSIE or AOL?</sarcasm>

      -sam
    • Odd how that happened. Oh, well... I'll just hit "Help|Report bug" and file a Konqueror bug report.

      --
      Evan

  • IANAL (Score:3, Informative)

    by PenguinX (18932) on Thursday September 20 2001, @11:52AM (#2325732) Homepage
    However it is my understanding of the law that you can create a contract that has a clause in it that breaks the law - (the US Constitution in this case - you know free speech and all) and it just blows the entire contract out of the water.

    Seems like a stupid move on the part of Microsoft IMHO.

    • IANAL, but...

      The Constitution says that the Government can't pass laws impeding freedom of the press; this doesn't mean that they guarentee everyone the right to speak. If you sign a contract not to talk about X that's more-or-less binding.

      Whether enforcing licenses which restrict press freedom could be held as violating the 1rst amendment is way unclear to me...
      • Get your state to pass a law voiding such contracts. Microsoft relies on contract law, a state legal system. If the state code says: "The liberties established in the US Constitution shall apply in all contractual relationships; no party shall abridge or void these rights. Any contract which does the preceding shall be invalid. In the event of intellectual property contracts violating this statute, the intellectual property shall be covered under the sections of the state code regarding sale of non-intellectual property to consumers and the property shall be regarded as a physical commodity bought and sold rather than a good licensed or leased." then there is nothing MSFT can do about it.

  • Interesting experiment. (Score:3, Offtopic)

    by Black Parrot (19622) on Thursday September 20 2001, @11:52AM (#2325742)
    If there's anyone here with that product and no great love for Microsoft, set up a "lauds" page that the average reader will immediately detect as being sarcastic (like the famous Micorsoft/Space Cadet page), but be careful to say nothing overtly critical. Then see whether they come after you.

    I'd volunteer, but they haven't released the Linux version yet.

  • That one's easy (Score:3, Informative)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) on Thursday September 20 2001, @11:53AM (#2325746)
    Okay, so use FrontPage to create your page's layout, write all the words in the page that don't refer to M$, M$NBC, M$N such as "the", "tarball" or "grandmother", then complete your page with VI or EMACS, which are pieces of software released under a non-M$-centric license.
  • It's a sensible idea, I think. Why would Microsoft [microsoft.com] allow its products to be used against them? It reminds me of Lenin [gnu.org]'s famous remark, "The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." Naturally, Microsoft [microsoft.com] not being stupid, they're not going to let you use their rope that way. Of course, most Slashdotters [slashdot.org] are against free-market capitalism [forbes.com], so I suppose it's understandable, in a pathetic sort of way, that this would be considered "newsworthy" around here.
  • Think about it. Your site has a review of windows XP and it finishes off with the conclusion that it is much better then 2000 and everyone should go out and upgrade from 2000.

    Hey you just disparaged 2000 and broke your frontpage license agreement.

    Bob.

  • Berserk all you want, MS. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Perianwyr Stormcrow (157913) on Thursday September 20 2001, @11:54AM (#2325763) Homepage
    It's been said before, and I suppose I'll end up having to say it this time.

    The more MS squeezes, the more slips through their fingers.

    Already, people are pretty much opting out of all this by continuing to run Windows 95 6 years after its release, and Office 97 4 years after its release. Many people have intimated that they'll hang onto 2000 as long as they can. If the longevity of previous MS OS's is any indicator, this may be five years or more.

    And of course, there's always our favorite X-Factor, waiting in the wings to scoop up faithful even from MS's latest and greatest.

    This effect becomes more obvious the more MS tightens the strings...
  • The first amendment prevents the federal government from restricting speech. The 14th extended that restriction to the individual states. Time to extend again, to cover corporations.
    Something along the lines of: "No corporation may violate any rights which the government is not allowed to violate."
    (Me is not versed in Lawyerly ways, so there should probably be more to it than that)
  • Someone who actually uses Front Page needs to test this. They need to create a site that criticizes Microsoft, and loudly proclaims that the site uses Front Page. This someone has to have enough money to be able to defend themselves and then test this. This has *got* to be an unreasonable clause to put in a license agreement, and needs to be tested.

    I officially un-volunteer! (Not enough $$)
    • What will testing it accomplish?

      Either the court will throw it out or uphold it. Examine each possibility for a moment.

      What is the end result? Even if this licensing provision is thrown out, an MS critic (or several) have spent millions of dollars and their time in litigation. An ingenious way to drain resources from your enemy. [The Borg weapon seems to be designed merely to drain the shields.]

      OTOH, if the licensing is upheld, it may mean that copyright law needs to be modified to include features that recognize licenses like this.

  • This relates only to Front Page SERVER COMPONENTS (Score:5, Informative)

    by rodbegbie (4449) on Thursday September 20 2001, @11:56AM (#2325787) Homepage
    This does not relate to documents edited with Front Page. It say that you are not allowed to use server-side elements such as the MSN MoneyCentral stock ticker on your website, if you are publishing anti-MS comments.

    rOD.

    • Re:This relates only to Front Page SERVER COMPONEN (Score:5, Informative)

      by rodbegbie (4449) on Thursday September 20 2001, @12:07PM (#2325883) Homepage
      In the spirit of fighting FUD, here is the whole section of the EULA (emphasis added by myself):

      2. FrontPage*
      (*version corresponding to Office XP)

      FrontPage web components. For purposes of this section, the Software means the FrontPage Web components, including the MSNBC news headline compone nt, the MSN MoneyCentral Stock Quote component, and the MSN Search component.

      Installation and Use. You may install and use any number of copies of the Software on server computers to provide services as part of your web site on the Internet that you des ign with FrontPage and that is not a mobile wireless or interactive television site ("Your Web Site").

      Restrictions. You may not edit or modify the Software in any manner whatsoever. You may not display any of the logos that appear in the Software in any manner that implies sponsorship, endorsement, or license of Your Web Site by the owners of such logos. If the Software contains any active links to other sites, you agree to maintain such active links and not redirect or modify them. You may not market, distribute, sublicense, lease or rent the Software on a stand- alone basis. You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia or their products or services, infringe any intellectual property or other rights of these parties, violate any state, federal or international law, or promote racism, hatred, or pornography. You shall not convert the news headlines in the MSNBC component into an audio format for redistribution to audio users. You agree to immediately remove the Software from Your Web Site if you do not abide by any of these restrictions after notice.

      rOD.

      • Re:This relates only to Front Page SERVER COMPONEN (Score:4, Interesting)

        by DunbarTheInept (764) on Thursday September 20 2001, @01:20PM (#2326416) Homepage
        It merely restricts visible elements (server-side controls and such) from being associated with objectionable content. And that seems pretty reasonable to me.
        Not all server-side things are "visible elements" to the user. No, plain and simple MS is saying you can't use MS FOO to communicate something bad about MS. It doesn't matter one iota whether MS FOO is an entire product or a subset of a prodcut (as in this case). The ethical issue is still the same. Here's an analogy: The phone company saying you can't use their three-way calling, caller ID, call waiting, or voice mail to say bad things about the phone company to your friends, but you can still use the more mundane generic phone call to do so. If you can't see what's wrong with that, then your psychology is so different from mine that you might as well be an alien.

  • According to this page [microsoft.com], you can't use the Frontpage logo on a site that disparage Microsoft. Which seems pretty reasonable to me.

    Good lord! Lies about Microsoft on Slashdot? Nah, couldn't be.

    • Point 7 --

      "7. You may not display the Logo on any site that disparages Microsoft or its products or services"

      kinda makes it impossible to comply with point 4 --

      "4. The Logo may be displayed only on Web pages that make accurate references to Microsoft."

      Oops.

    • Actually, forget the above. I think I found where this came from. Take a look at this PDF [northwestern.edu] that has the phrase. Unfortunately, the PDF reader sucks when it comes to selecting text. But I think this is the relevent part: "For purposes of this section, the Software means the FrontPage Web components, including the MSNBC news headline compone nt, the MSN MoneyCentral Stock Quote component, and the MSN Search component."

      This section looks like it specifically about components that interface with MSNBC news sites or something like that. It's not clear exactly what this section is referring to.

      In any case, it's not a broad "you can't create an anti-Microsoft web site with Frontpage".

  • Show me where... (Score:5, Informative)

    by The Bastard (25271) on Thursday September 20 2001, @12:01PM (#2325824)
    I'm no fan of Microsoft, but I reamed Foster in an e-mail for reporting this crap. Upon reading this the other day, I went to a co-worker who has FrontPage 2002 installed, and we both looked through the included on-line EULA. Damned if we could find any mention of this "prohibition".

    So, show me where in the EULA this is stated. Are there multiple EULAs? Then which one takes precedence ("the last one? well, that wasn't the one I got when I bought it" concept)?

    Damn it...THINK PEOPLE...investigate these things on your own and don't just knee-jerk a reaction because someone says something exists. Doesn't help perceptions much, especially if the liars/FUDers this time around are the open-source proponets....

  • Slashdot Censors Too (Score:4, Funny)

    by SIGFPE (97527) on Thursday September 20 2001, @12:04PM (#2325850) Homepage
    If I say that slashdot is a load of old crap with contributions from a bunch of smelly spotty sex-starved geeks who think something like an operating system can actually be cool I'll get censored into oblivion by offended moderators pretty damn quickly. Here, watch:

    <Ducks for cover>
    Slashdot is a load of old crap with contributions from a bunch of smelly spotty sex-starved geeks who think something like an operating system can actually be cool
    </Ducks for cover>
  • As an intellectual property attorney, I can only say that this is the most disgusting and repugnant use of intellectual property rights I have ever seen.
  • I wonder if Lucas is considering a similar clause on the upcomming DVD.
    • Why does big corporations always want to curtail liberty? (1st pst?)

      The question we should really be asking is: Is our corporations learning?
    • Only the people who want to use Microsoft software and agree to the license terms are bound by them.

      It doesn't affect the rest of the world.
      If you don't like the terms, don't use the software.

    • Doesn't the US Constitution guarantee the right to say what you want?

      Sure it does (mostly). But it doesn't guarantee the right to say it with MS FrontPage.

      Try actually reading the document to see what it really says about your rights.

      On a related topic: Has anyone ever noticed that the President is only given the power of supreme commander of the army, navy, and, sometimes, militia. The air force and marines are never mentioned in any articles or ammendments. Who's in charge of them?

      • Air Force grew out of the Army Air Corps after WWII and the Marines are officially a subset of the Navy, so the President is officially CIC of those branches as well.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.