Updated: 4/4/06; 6:05:47 PM.
Ted's Radio Weblog
Mission: Interoperable. Competition breeds Innovation. Monopolies breed stagnation. Working Well with Others is Good.
        

Tuesday, April 15, 2003

James R. Regan linked to my Social Software on Meatball Wiki link. Thanks, James. He, in turn, had an interesting article on "Blogs, dialogue and identity building" from Lilia Efimova's site, which in turn leads to the KM Wiki and to Ton Zijlstra's Inter Thoughts. While I was at it, there were interesting side trips to WikiWebPIM, the IAWiki with this great picture of Post_Web Information System Design and Tim O'Reilly and Adam Turoff having a great conversation on developer communities for Open and Closed Source projects.

Obviously, a lot of time and effort has gone into the discussion of "What are blogs?" and "How do they help things?" and "What's The Next Big Thing?"

While blogs may serve, in the day-to-day chronological sense, as a dialogue between peers, a discussion group, the ability to archive them turns them into a knowledge base, although one difficult to search and navigate. A reader can follow, days, weeks or months later, a conversation that may have gone back and forth, but they may step into the conversation in the middle, or lose the final conclusion. A mechanism to summarize and group these related conversations together is needed. Relevance scoring is always welcomed.
8:20:30 PM    comment []


It seems that, since Microsoft is selling everything everywhere (and often hiding behind retailers), it's difficult to come to a consensus on who the average consumer is who was hurt by their monopolistic behaviors. Law can be such a torturously tangled web sometimes. Microsoft has no Class (Action) From Ars Technica
6:28:05 PM    comment []

Here's a followup to my blog of last week where I reported that Microsoft gags MVP and 'Lifetime Achievement Award' winner. Whil posted this message today:

Hi folks,

Hey! Remember me?

Attached is an email I've just sent to Ken Levy and other members of the Fox team at Microsoft. It pretty well sums up what happened last week, and should clear up misconceptions on anyone's part. If not, well, ask away. I'll be gone Thursday and part of Friday in Denver, but will be around the rest of the time.

I was at a conference last weekend, and heard this great line: "Bill Gates seems to me to be the type of person you'd invite over for dinner, and he'd take all of the mashed potatoes for himself." But even better was this one:

"The future is already here. It's just not evenly distributed."

We live in pretty interesting times, eh?

Whil

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Ken:

Last Wednesday you called me to tell me that the article in FoxTalk about running VFP on Linux was prohibited by the EULA in both VFP 7 and 8. You didn't provide additional details, and given that you interrupted me at dinner, I didn't have the wherewithal to ask you to explain more.

However, I asked you to have someone on MSFT's legal staff confirm this to me in writing. I did this for two reasons. First, I don't believe that you have the authority to legally interpret Microsoft's legal documents, nor do I think you want to try to legally bind Microsoft to a contractual position while you hold a job as a marketing manager.

Second, given that you were trying to impart critical information that, in your words, couldn't wait until I got home yesterday (Monday), I wanted to make sure that I accurately understood what you were saying. It's so easy for a rushed conversation to generate misunderstandings.

Yet , that's exactly what has happened.

The article discussed how to run VFP on a machine running Linux as a development environment, and was explicit in reminding the reader that they would need to have the proper licenses. You stated that this is a violation of the VFP 7 and 8 EULA. However, in the next 48 hours, you then told both Ed Leafe and Ted Roche that as long as the licenses were in order, this activity is indeed permitted by the EULA.

Well, I'm confused. Why did you tell me one thing, and then them something completely different? Perhaps one of us has misunderstood. Three separate voice conversations - very easy to happen. But this apparent contradiction is exactly why I wanted this matter settled explicitly in writing.

To date, I have not received anything. Perhaps my request slipped through the cracks; perhaps you didn't understand during our rushed conversation exactly what I was asking for.

As I understood from our abbreviated conversation, you said the activities described in the article were prohibited. But after reading the EULA a number of times, I can't see how you come to that conclusion. Nor can a number of other folks with whom I've talked. To wit:

1. Your statement to me indicates that it was illegal for an individual to run the development version of VFP 8 on a machine running Linux even if the developer has a license specifically for that machine. It is our opinion that this is permissable by the EULA, since hubbub surrounding the EULA only makes reference to redistribution.

2. The EULA seems to prohibit the distribution of certain Microsoft components on non-Windows operating systems - specifically, the files listed in REDIST.TXT, which include the MSMs. However, it is physically possible to distribute and run an executable created by the VFP project manager in conjunction with the VFP runtime DLLs, without needing to bother with the MSMs. Thus it is our opinion that deploying VFP apps to customer workstations or servers using a developer created EXE and the VFP runtime DLLs, regardless of the operating system, is legal.

3. In a bigger context, it appears that Microsoft is tying the use of applications (their developer tools) to their operating system. Given the legal difficulties that Microsoft has encountered over the years, we don't believe that this is legal, and thus we don't believe that this is the intent of the EULA. Rather, we believe that some overzealous, but inexperienced, legal staffer drafted a poorly worded EULA, intending to ensure that the appropriate licenses are in place for applications as well as operating systems.

To repeat my request, and to be explicit about it:

Please have an individual authorized by Microsoft Corporation to speak on its behalf with respect to legal affairs provide me, in writing, the following clarifications about the VFP 7 and 8 EULA. The specific questions for your legal department to answer are:

1. Can an individual developer run Visual FoxPro 8.0 on a machine exclusively running the Linux operating system, assuming that the appropriate VFP license was paid for, for development purposes? (In other words, that a copy of VFP was licensed strictly for that machine.)

2. Can an individual deploy VFP apps to customer workstations or servers that are running Linux using a developer created EXE and the VFP runtime DLLs (without using Installshield or another mechanism that relies on the MSMs)?

3. Is the EULA restricting the manner in which the developer creates and deploys an application for a customer - meaning it prohibits an installation that bypasses the MSMs?

I do not want you to get stuck in the uncomfortable position of trying to act as Microsoft's counsel when you do not have the authoritiy to do so. You certainly don't want to attempt to make legal committments on Microsoft's behalf! However, I welcome your offer to intercede and make the appropriate contact with Microsoft legal so that they can put what we can and cannot do in writing.

As you know, the computing industry is in difficult times, and all players are doing what they can to make ends meet. Deploying VFP applications on Linux brings a new standard of application quality to that platform, and lets Visual FoxPro developers exploit their advanced skills in new markets. It would be disappointing to find those skills going to waste. Please help clarify what is and is not allowed.

I need to hear back by Monday, April 21. If I don't, we'll go ahead with the assumptions that (1) we can run VFP 8 on Linux, and (2) we can deploy applications on Linux via EXEs and DLLs.

Thanks!

Whil

Fox is Everywhere Hentzenwerke InterGalactic: http://www.hentzenwerke.com

[Ted notes: some updates in the past two weeks. See these links:

Updated by Ted Roche, 30-April-2003]
6:22:50 PM    comment []

A picture named scoble.jpgDave Winer writes "Robert Scoble just called to say that he's leaving NEC to join Microsoft as technical evangelist for a new product in development. He'll work for Robert Hess, a smart guy I've known for many years. It's a good match, a dream job for Scoble, and Microsoft gets a foot in the blogging world, and enthusiastic evangelism from a true believer. Congratulations to Robert and to his new employer." [from Scripting News]
3:52:54 PM    comment []

Garrett Fitzgerald posted "The Mother of all Demos. A recent Slashdot post calls this "The Mother of all Demos", and I'm inclined to agree. I didn't realize that mouse-based computing was almost as old as I am. "

I'm really pleased to see history sites like this out there. There's very little new under the sun, not even in computing. I explained to a fellow developer recently that I was using "Instant Messaging" and "Chat Rooms" on a GE-635 mainframe back in 1976, and that I was printing a publishing document from a GUI using scalable fonts and Postscript output, in 1988.

Now, has anyone got a good link to Alan Kay's DynaBook videos?
3:51:06 PM    comment []


© Copyright 2006 Ted Roche.   

Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

  

 

April 2003
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      
Mar   May


Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website.

Subscribe to "Ted's Radio Weblog" in Radio UserLand.

Click to see the XML version of this web page.

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.
Blogroll