Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

MS FrontPage Restricts Free Speech II (It's True!)

CmdrTaco posted about 13 years ago | from the on-and-on-and-on dept.

Microsoft 763

A mild controvery occured yesterday in a story claiming Microsoft prohibits anti-ms speech if you use Frontpage. Here is a followup submitted by Reyacta from the original author: "Several readers have told me their EULA for FrontPage 2002 does not contain the no-disparaging-MS term, or that the term only applies to the FrontPage logo or to the Web components like the MSNBC news headline component. Just to be sure, this afternoon I went down to the store and bought a copy of FrontPage 2002 myself. In the box was the "Microsoft Frontpage 2002" license on a four-page folded sheet, titled "End- User License Agreement For Microsoft Software." Under Section #1, Grant of License, the second paragraph headed "Restrictions" states in part: "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." (Not only a stunning example of legal overreaching, in my opinion, but very poor grammar as well.) It appears to me to clearly apply to use of the program as a whole and not just the logo or Web components. I suspect that there are different versions of the EULA of FrontPage 2002. Perhaps the license was updated for the most recent SKU, or versions obtained through different channels don't yet have it. I'm going to try to get Microsoft to clarify where this EULA does and doesn't appear, but I'm not sure they will be very anxious to provide me with that information. Reply to Ed Foster."

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

3rd Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2330303)

3rd Post Niggaz!

www.yourmom.comasdfdsfasd sdaaf asdfsadfsad

Microsoft's new dictionary EULA (4, Funny)

Jonathunder (105885) | about 13 years ago | (#2330307)

Use of this Dictionary of the English Language, or any of the words contained herein, constitutes acceptance of the following terms: You shall not use this dictionary, or any of the words derived therefrom, to disparage Microsoft, Encarta, or any of the companies we swallow up.

Re:Microsoft's new dictionary EULA (2, Insightful)

tauntalum (221678) | about 13 years ago | (#2330326)

All your thoughts are belong to us!

Re:Microsoft's new dictionary EULA (1)

jayhawk88 (160512) | about 13 years ago | (#2330346)

You have no chance at freedom of speech, make your time.

Re:Microsoft's new dictionary EULA (-1)

medicthree (125112) | about 13 years ago | (#2330349)

you tool. there's a difference between Encarta and Expedia. does microsoft even make Encarta?

Re:Microsoft's new dictionary EULA (1)

alen (225700) | about 13 years ago | (#2330422)

Yes, Microsoft makes Encarta. Check out the Encarta Website []

Re:Microsoft's new dictionary EULA (2)

cyberdonny (46462) | about 13 years ago | (#2330460)

Yes, Microsoft makes Encarta. Check out the Encarta Website

And check the definition of Microsoft in the Encarta... Any dictionary lauding Microsoft that much has to be owned by them...

Totally Wrong (0)

Dragthor (100233) | about 13 years ago | (#2330317)

They definitely messed up on this one. I am not Anti-Microsoft like the rest of you and I still cannot believe this.

solution (1)

beuk (18933) | about 13 years ago | (#2330318)

boycott their products

Who fucking cares? (-1, Offtopic)

13013dobbs (113910) | about 13 years ago | (#2330320)

I doubt anyone here uses it anyway.

Re:Who fucking cares? (1)

mark_lybarger (199098) | about 13 years ago | (#2330437)

yes, but it's always nice to remember why we don't use those product :)

Unfortunately... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2330446)

Yeah but some of our bosses do. And then they tell us to put their stuff on the website. Ugh.

A comment about bad grammer on /. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2330321)

The gears of irony crush again.

Stupid (1)

phoon12 (244785) | about 13 years ago | (#2330323)

How surprising. MS continues to do things to piss me off. Good thing that I'm not using frontpage to write this comment...

Re:Stupid (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2330400)

If you don't use Frontpage, why do you give a flying fuck? Or, do you just like to bitch?

On the Plus Side... (2)

Greyfox (87712) | about 13 years ago | (#2330325)

You should get no argument when you return the product. Just tell the salesperson "The EULA prohibits me from using this product to run my website,"

Re:On the Plus Side... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2330449)

You should ask for a definition of what they mean by pornography.. Can you show titties?

The Next Step (1)

GraZZ (9716) | about 13 years ago | (#2330327)

Windows 2005 EULA:

Microsoft Windows may not be used for anything BUT the purposes of connection to .NET servers, MSN and Bill Gate's Private XXX Stash.


You actually bought it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2330330)

You ARE going to return it on the grounds that you do not accept their user agreement, right? :)

CmdrtTaco complaining... (0, Offtopic)

laserjet (170008) | about 13 years ago | (#2330332)

And I quote:

"Not only a stunning example of legal overreaching, in my opinion, but very poor grammar as well."

I'm sorry. It's just so funny to read CmdrTaco complaining about grammar. I couldn't resist.

Re:CmdrtTaco complaining... (0, Offtopic)

Elminst (53259) | about 13 years ago | (#2330340)

CT didn't make that statement.
The guy who submitted the story did.

Re:CmdrtTaco complaining... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2330375)

We need a new moderation category: "wrong information"

Re:CmdrtTaco complaining... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2330383)

I am pretty sure that would cover 95% of the posts to slashdot.

Re:CmdrtTaco complaining... (0, Redundant)

he-sk (103163) | about 13 years ago | (#2330392)

Then you should have looked closer, as it isn't Taco who's complaining, but Reycata probably quoting the original author Ed Foster.

Re:CmdrtTaco complaining... (0, Offtopic)

laserjet (170008) | about 13 years ago | (#2330404)

I stand corrected. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. One must admit, however, that CmdrTaco COULD have said it.

Re:CmdrtTaco complaining... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2330431)

Not to mention:
So I went out and bought myself a copy of FrontPage 2002

Do you honestly think Taco would *ever* buy FrontPage? Even if he really needed it, he's too zealotous to buy it.

Re:CmdrtTaco complaining... (0, Redundant)

hylander_sb (181045) | about 13 years ago | (#2330428)

Dude, that wasn't Cmdr Taco complaining.

cut from the article -

Here is a followup submitted by Reyacta from the original author

Sheesh. If you're going to bash, be right.

Re:CmdrtTaco complaining... (1, Offtopic)

RollingThunder (88952) | about 13 years ago | (#2330443)

Repeat ten times every morning...

"Text in italics in a Slashdot story is written by the submitter, not Slashdot staff"


Huh. (3, Redundant)

BillyGoatThree (324006) | about 13 years ago | (#2330333)

So Microsoft is monopolisitic and overbearing.

Whoda thunk it?

Oh my GOD!!! We're at war!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2330335)


Those damned terrorists just took out the Empire State Building and Sears towers! The Empire State Building is still standing but the Sears went down 35 minutes after it was hit. There are also reports of a gas attack on Boston. Another plane was shot down on its way to the capital.

Yahoo has the terrible details here [] .

*** UPDATE ***

It seems the Empire State building has finally collapsed! Fire and medical officials are afraid to go in after authorities received threats of anthrax bombs in the plane! Over 25,000 dead in Boston!!


I can't write anymore sorry

Shyit, so what? Dis be da history of muh family yo (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2330336)

"Dis be what happened to get muh ayazz here."


So back da fuckin' day n' shit I had a fuckin' ancestor niggrah in Niger. He lived in a fuckin' tree and chased monkey's and threw fuckin' spears n' shyit. The asshole had one fuck of a good life, till the fuckin' whitie man got on the wrong turf. There were no gizzats back then, so muh nigs got on a shyip n' shit.

Fuckin'...they went to a cotton place or some shit. They would pick cotton for whitey and get whipped for it. If they learned to read, they get a gat in the face, yo. Word.

So when dat white fuck let the slaves free n' shit, Great grandnig was free n' shit. He fuckin' met my Grat Grandma bitch and they fucked...a fuckin' lot, negro. After a while, my fuckin' Grandpa popped outta Great Grandho's poon.

Some fuckin' day, a crackah-ass Skinhead bitch raped Grandma up the ass and shot her in the clit and stole her crack and her 40. Grandpa went ape-shit and tried to kill whitey. Shit went down, and Grandfuck joined the fukkin' army n' shit so he could carry a fuckin gat or some shit.

One day some Germany whities try to start a war or some shit. Grandfuck was sent to Germany land to fight the Niza's. Grandpa was amped out one fuckin' night from Germaine crizzack rizzock. The nig was chasin Jeebus around and fuckin stepped on a land mine or some shit. He had to go to duh fukkin' hospitable. There he fuckin' met muh Grandmizza. They fizzed the shiznit outta each other till GRandies ebony rhythym stick turned fukin white.

Months or some shit latah, Muh Mizzom pops her black ass outta Gramndna cunt. Affah dat, some whizzite Neezah bitch fucked Grandpuhs ayazz and capped his ayazz. Grizzma saw dat shit and ran. Duh dumb bitch end up in some white people party an nevah came back o' shome shit.

Affa dizzat, some Noza find Mizzom and told da beotch if he fizzucked her tight blackass, he wouldn't throw no bleotch in da face o' some shit. Mowma said fuck yeah o' some shyit, and dat was fuckin' dat.

Fuckin' years or some shit latah, da big fro whizzite Nicza bitch found out dis crazy-negro shit. He bring fuckin' Mowme to the Headquarters fuckin' crib n shit. They all pass da bitch roun n' shit. She not even get paid from dem. Massa Hitelir fuck dat puss when Mizma wuz old enuff and affa dat, ah pizzopped muh pearly whits outta dat cizzunt. Fuck if ah now, but I be here n' now. Yeah. I'm blizzack gizzowd n' shit. Nigs woship muh ayazz, an yo ass should too.

Das why duh fuck I be here, nigs.

Re:Shyit, so what? Dis be da history of muh family (0, Offtopic)

shpoffo (114124) | about 13 years ago | (#2330432)

You know, that wasn't even really that creative - and your imitation of the dialect wasn't that good either. If you're going to take the time to be a racist fuck, at least have the decency to be funny at it. Maybe that's 'the problem' - black people are a lot better at making fun of white people than white people are at making fun of black people


Or... (1)

shpoffo (114124) | about 13 years ago | (#2330338)

why not just ignore that part of the EULA (or all of it =P) - i mean, what are they going to do, sue you? There's no way they could win *It's Unconstitutional*

stop paying attention to bad laws - they only distract you fromt he real problems going on


Re:Or... (3, Funny)

ichimunki (194887) | about 13 years ago | (#2330397)

It's not even a bad law, it's a faulty contract which may well fail to persist under judicial scrutiny. Frankly, though, if you are using Frontpage, you have bigger problems than this EULA.

Re:Or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2330415)

Naderist cynicism aside, last time I checked MS was not Congress, and therefore Constitutional prohibitions on Congress have nothing to do with them.

What do they teach them in schools these days?

Who will be first to type micro$oft or windoze? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2330341)

Typing it like that is beyond lame. People who do are lusers.

Re:Who will be first to type micro$oft or windoze? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2330389)

You just did, in the subject. Loser.

Grammar (3, Funny)

bperkins (12056) | about 13 years ago | (#2330342)

Not only a stunning example of legal overreaching, in my opinion, but very poor grammar as well.

Where's the verb in this sentence?

Re:Grammar (1)

Carlos Laviola (127699) | about 13 years ago | (#2330371)

What's your point? That sentence is perfectly valid.

Re:Grammar (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2330396)

No it ain't.

Re:Grammar (1)

fwankypoo (58987) | about 13 years ago | (#2330377)

Even more importantly, where's the noun?

Important Question (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2330344)

Am I first? Am I?

Terrorists... (2, Funny)

TheNecromancer (179644) | about 13 years ago | (#2330347)

I hope bin Laden isn't using FrontPage, or he'll really be in trouble!!

Re:Terrorists... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2330390)

Stupid troll.

Re:Terrorists... (2)

MouseR (3264) | about 13 years ago | (#2330407)

I hope bin Laden isn't using FrontPage

I think that proof he is not is that Redmond was untouched by all this mess.

I think no terrorist in their deviate minds would allow not to at least graffiti on MS's walls if they, at some point, had to use any of MS's product.

Monopoly separation failed... (2)

FortKnox (169099) | about 13 years ago | (#2330350)

I can see Gates right now...
"Hey, the government loves us enough to not separate us, lets see what else we can get away with!"

Seriously, its like training a Jack Russel Terrier. They are constantly testing their bounds to see what they can get away with. Someone needs to smack MS hard, and fast.

Self Defeating (1)

Snar Bloot (324250) | about 13 years ago | (#2330351)

If MS wants to ban the use of Front Page 2002 in the construction or maintenance of any sites which disparage them in some way, or which promote pornography, aren't they severely limiting their audience?

Well that language takes out work-around (1)

John Harrison (223649) | about 13 years ago | (#2330352)

You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages Microsoft...

So the work around that many proposed is also prohibited. It was suggested that you could edit most of your site in Frontpage and then pop in the references to EVIL using vi or even Notepad (gag). But if you can't even use Frontpage in connection with an anti-Microsoft site then that option is out the window.

Next thing you know, Adobe will prohibit using GoLive! in connection with pro-Skylarov sites.

EULA returns? (1)

MentlFlos (7345) | about 13 years ago | (#2330354)

Anyone every try and return software because they didn't agree with the EULA? I can just see the arguement you would get in because its been opened and thus can only be exchanged for the same product.

What a shitty catch 22.


That sucks (2, Funny)

skrowl (100307) | about 13 years ago | (#2330356)

What good is making a website if you can't promote pornography?? Isn't that what the web is for??

Re:That sucks (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 13 years ago | (#2330408)

> What good is making a website if you can't promote pornography?

Does distributing it necessarily imply that you promote it?

What if you put a disclaimer on your pr0n site saying "I do not promote pornography". D'yer that keep their lawyers happy?

I don't trust it (0)

Wind_Walker (83965) | about 13 years ago | (#2330358)

Can we get a scan of that exact page? After the hoax of yesterday, I'm a little wary of this entire subject...

Re:I don't trust it (1)

sqlrob (173498) | about 13 years ago | (#2330398)

Does a scan mean anything? How hard would it be to toss something together in Adobe that looks exacly like the MS EULA?

Re:I don't trust it -- but worth a laugh (2)

AtariDatacenter (31657) | about 13 years ago | (#2330427)

Sorry, can't do that. The agreement says that you cannot use the licensing agreement to disparage itself.

What's next? (1)

programic (139404) | about 13 years ago | (#2330359)

Maybe we'll see something like this in the next Internet Explorer EULA:

You may not use this software to view websites that disparage Microsoft or any of its entities. If you do, we'll hunt you down, take your computer, your mother's computer, and add you to our general shitlist.

i wouldn't expect less (1)

jaxon6 (104115) | about 13 years ago | (#2330360)

honestly, what do you expect from microsoft, the company that has made it's billions from being heavy-handed in every situation it could. we're all well aware of the netscape/ie debate, the desktop-oem debate, the 'unfair' pricing strategy where ms penalizes those who would dare defy it.

wait a second, i've yet to read the license agreement for win2k(who the hell does anyway?) or ie6. by posting using these, could i wind up on ms's blacklist? maybe a funny thought now, but if this type of policy is permitted, it won't be funny in the future, it'll probably be true. think about it, your freedom of speech gone, because microsoft has billions, and it ends up writing the laws. feels kinda f*cked up to me.

8th post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2330363)


send copies to bin laden..then blame him for something and nuke em.

ok..need more sugar...

My Comment License: (0, Offtopic)

jdevons (233314) | about 13 years ago | (#2330364)

My Comment License:

By reading this comment you are hereby accepting the terms of the following license:
1. You will never comment upon this comment to anyone.
2. You cannot read this comment aloud.
3. You cannot tell anyone where to find this comment.
4. (To hell with it!) You can't even read this comment.

Re:My Comment License: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2330388)

But can we call you a cock-sucking jizz-monkey for posting it? How about a cum-slurping Nazi-fucking whore who eats his own sister's pussy? Or is that too disparaging?

Is a reply considered a comment upon your comment? Oh my God, did I just break your EULA??!!

*shits his pants*

Re:My Comment License: (1)

jdevons (233314) | about 13 years ago | (#2330435)

By the way:

Violators of my comment license are required to send nude pictures of their favorite celebs to the goatsex people. (There has got to be something we can do to cure them...)

yes! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2330365)

<Slashdot> Hey look guys, remember that post we did yesterday, now we KNOW it wasn't just a rumor, better post an update.

How enforcable is this? (1)

Alfthemack (17146) | about 13 years ago | (#2330367)

Will they go after "adult" sites for damages or parody/satire sites?

What about the UCITA states? I believe at least one has passed a law that shrink-wrap licenses are enforceable.

Seems pretty stupid... (2, Funny)

Uttles (324447) | about 13 years ago | (#2330369)

... to sell a web page building application and then say it can't be used for promoting pornography. Doesn't MS realize that 99% of web content is pictures of naked ladies?

(intended as humor)

Re:Seems pretty stupid... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2330445)

And the other 10% is naked men!

Hey (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2330370)

Stop wasting your time bashing Microsoft and go contribute to an open-source project.

They're just protecting themselves... (1)

reynaert (264437) | about 13 years ago | (#2330372)

What if somebody starts crying "Frontpage is used to distribute porn! That's immoral! Make laws against it!"

You think that can't happen? You should know better...

We don't need no steenking GUI!!! (1)

Elminst (53259) | about 13 years ago | (#2330376)

Everyone knows Notepad is the best html editor anyway...

Oh wait, notepad is an MS product...

vi! pico! emacs!
GUI's are for wusses!!

Re:We don't need no steenking GUI!!! (2)

ekrout (139379) | about 13 years ago | (#2330430)

Not to be a stickler, but a GUI is a Graphical User Interface. Emacs, for one, has a nice, albeit simple, user interface with menus and such (although, yes, there is an emacs version that's console-based). The term you probably meant was WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get), which is often used to describe HTML editors where you drag and drop pictures and links (ala Front Page) rather than hand coding the entire page (ala Pico, Notepad, etc).

Don't boycott, test their resolve! (1)

pmbuko (162438) | about 13 years ago | (#2330384)

There's no sense boycotting the product. I would assume that the majority of users here on /. don't even use FrontPage, so a boycott is pointless.

I say instead of staging as boycott, go out and actually buy the product, then create a website detailing the terms of the FrontPage EULA. Include your opinions, but try to make it as informative as possible. Technically, this would be anti-MS (I don't see how it couldn't).

Then, wait and see what happens. My guess is MS will leave it alone. At worst, they might revoke your license, in which case you're better off that you were before. :P

Microsoft ++ungood (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2330385)

Time to break out the doublespeak I guess.

Wow- what a move (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | about 13 years ago | (#2330386)

If this means what it sounds like, doesn't that impinge on the 1st Amendment, and thereby become unconstitutional?

Microsoft- not only are we a monopoly, we're unconstitutional!

So (-1)

SpanishInquisition (127269) | about 13 years ago | (#2330387)

It means that any government that has taken judiciary actions against the Microsoft monopoly cannot use their products.

Come on, let's all take a hammer and smash all those NT servers.

Hatred? (2)

mgkimsal2 (200677) | about 13 years ago | (#2330393)

"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."

It seems these argeements tend to get more sweeping. I can understand them actually saying 'don't use our products to disparage us'. Whether or not that's legal or binding, it's understandable.

But "hatred"? That's such a broad term that I'm rather surprised a legal let it in. How do you define hatred? Or rather, where does the definition stop? Many people agree on certain actions being 'hateful' or based on hatred, but others wouldn't be so clear cut. Anti-abortion sites might be considered 'hate' sites by some people- can they not use front page? Hatred (and porn) is in the eye of the beholder oftentimes, so how can a person USING the software determine how OTHERS will classify their use of the product?

The question is... (1)

Dirk Pitt (90561) | about 13 years ago | (#2330394)

Would it then be illegal to create a message board with frontpage, if it was used without the knowledge of the creator to post anti-microsoft propaganda? This would, theoretically, allow MS to moderate discussion sites created with frontpage.

Pornography? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2330401)

I thought porno was an art form. I guess I can't post any nude girl photos on my web site showing off my artwork (homework) from the correspondence course I enrolled in from France and Italy. I wonder if I'll pass the class now that my French/Italian art tutor can't view my web pages to grade my work on a scale of 1-10 :)

A solution for Microsoft (1)

Enkur (515693) | about 13 years ago | (#2330402)

Microsoft might not have to spend so much effort trying to stop people from insulting their software if they spent a little more effort putting out software that doesn't earn as many disparaging remarks.

Awww Shucks (1)

GuntherAEPi (254349) | about 13 years ago | (#2330405)

And I was so looking forward to migrating my site to Frontpage. Looks like I'll never be the complete and total MS Whore I've always wanted to be. Drats!

wow, now I can't rip frontpage (1)

VEGETA_GT (255721) | about 13 years ago | (#2330409)

Dam it, now its really not worth me ripping front page 2002 off the net. I can break a license agreement once, but twice on the same piece of software, that's going way to far people.

Just going to have to stick with plane old notepad

my 2 cents plus 2 more

No pornography? (1)

typical geek (261980) | about 13 years ago | (#2330410)

Geez, they better start cleaning house at and Netmeeting before they start bitching about Front Page users and pornography.

pr0n (1)

forgoil (104808) | about 13 years ago | (#2330411)

Hmm, does that mean that Microsoft employees are encouraged to surf as much pr0n as possible, so that they can make sure the pages hasn't been done with frontpage? Call me mad, but it sounds like a pretty sweet arrangement ^_^

More seriously, does USA lack a govermental branch which deals with the rights of its citizens? Free speech? Almost all of us wants to get rid of all the terror and hate in the world, but it would be a terrible price to pay to turn west into the Taliban regime to achieve the goal...

Re:pr0n (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2330459)

Dear Microsoft:

I would like to be on the team that finds violation of the Front Page EULA. I am really good at surfing for porn, and I like it a lot. I will be able to come up with a lot of great things that will have us both excited.

Please write back.

A non-issue (1)

ffattizzi (516177) | about 13 years ago | (#2330412)

While this is "legally overreaching", how many people is this going to affect? No one is going to shell out $100 for Frontpage to develop an anti-MS website. They _may_ download a "free" copy just to stick it to MS, but they won't pay. Not to mention that it is not enforceable.

What kind of credibility would an anti-MS website have if it used Frontpage anyway?

Fuss... (3, Funny)

ryanwright (450832) | about 13 years ago | (#2330414)

I don't know what the fuss is about. I'd love to see the bastards try to enforce this.

Microsoft Lawyer: "Your honor, I call CmdrTaco to the stand."
Taco: (takes stand)
MS: "Did you, on 9/20/2001, purchase a copy of Frontpage 2000?"
Taco: "Yes."
MS: "Did you, on 9/21/2001, use Frontpage 2000 to create a web site?"
Taco: "Yes."
MS: "And did that web site contain pictures of Mr. William H. Gates III engaging in copulation with half a dozen goats while simultaneously using the Microsoft logo to spank cash out of customers, bent over with their palms on the floor, pants around their ankles and stupid smiles on their faces?"

Nice precedent (2)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 13 years ago | (#2330418)

In other news: "You may not use this pen to write disparaging statements about BIC [] , or to commit slander, libel, or any criminal act. BIC explicitely refute any liability for misuse of this kind."

not valid 'till challenged? (1)

Sebastopol (189276) | about 13 years ago | (#2330419)


I read a few interesting bullets in the original thread. One poster claimed that a flaw in the agreement voids the entire agreement. I also remember hearing that agreements like this can be voided if challenged in court.

So, all we need are a few daring souls to pen a few anti-MS websites using FP2002 and see if they take the bait. Assuming everyone gave their IRS rebate to the EFF, ;-), I suspect an interesting legal battle.

Great marketing move! (4, Redundant)

cyberdonny (46462) | about 13 years ago | (#2330420)

Just make an outrageous EULA, and the geeks will flock to by your product to check with their own eyes that the EULA is indeed as outrageous as the rumors says it is...

Hmmm.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2330426)

Maybe given the quality of sites like slashdot that tend to blindly and uniformly bash MS products, the EULA is really doing the web a favor.

Really, it's like banning geek zionists.

Show me a scan, please (2)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | about 13 years ago | (#2330429)

I'm sure the poster is showing that particular section, but other agreements found on the web had language at the beginning of the section restricting the scope of following sections.

I'm still dubious on this until I see it for myself, in context.

Well I didn't agree to that license... (2)

isa-kuruption (317695) | about 13 years ago | (#2330434)

... when I downloaded it from an FTP site in China ;)

Frontpage is evil (1)

Xpilot (117961) | about 13 years ago | (#2330436)

My coursemates at the institution I attend are all reliant on FRONTPAGE to craft HTML (and they're from CS too). They're introduced to web site building via FRONTPAGE, and they know nothing else, and are unwilling to learn anything else. The very thought that you can make web pages with a text editor is ridiculous as far as they're concerned.

The result of this? Our sysadmin (who graduated from our fine institution) makes really important information available using FRONTPAGE, and guess what? It refuses to load on anything other than the latest IE (it's full of ActiveX crap).

Frontpage is evil. It adds proprietry M$ extensions to messy HTML output. I'm all for HTML editing tools, but FRONTPAGE? I'm glad it's illegal to use it for so many things ;)

An ironic story as it follows closely the heels of (1)

Vicegrip (82853) | about 13 years ago | (#2330438)

the one on the DOJs legal wranglings. I suppose this will be largely unnoticed by the media in general...

One day in the future, free speech won't be illegal, it'll be an encroachment on the license agreement every citizen^h^h^h^h human resource must have with the Corporation of the U.S.A. (c) (r), patents pending, a subsidiary of Microsoft World Enterprises.

A little angry rhetoric I know.. but its how I feel right now.

Very poor Grammar? HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH (0, Offtopic)

cybrthng (22291) | about 13 years ago | (#2330441)

That says alot coming from this website.

hahhahaha, thanks.. i needed a laugh. Were going to war and all slashdot has to bitch about is an EUL of a program that doesn't even run under linux.

I can write a program that restricts its usage to females over 18 who love lesbian sex and will only be able to run this program butt ass naked.

hahahahahah, Cmdrtaco bitching about grammar hahaahahahahahahhaahahahahahahhaahahahhaah

Re:Very poor Grammar? HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH (2)

RollingThunder (88952) | about 13 years ago | (#2330457)

Text in italics = story submitter
Text NOT in italics = Cmdr Taco or other staff

Is it really that hard to understand?

Internet Explorer License (2)

tbo (35008) | about 13 years ago | (#2330444)

Hmm, what will the next Internet Explorer license look like?

"You may not use the Software to view 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. Or Slashdot."

I wonder if the lawyers at various companies have contests to see who can sneak the most outrageous EULA past customers. I can just see it,

"Hey Ted, now everybody who buys our software X has to name their firstborn after me."

"Ha! That's nothing. Everybody who buys our stuff has to GIVE me their firstborn."

Microsoft is bad for the economy (2)

Pinball Wizard (161942) | about 13 years ago | (#2330447)

First, they try to shake down small to medium sized businesses. If they find a violation, their reaction is not to help the business come in to compliance, but to hurt them financially.

Now they won't sell Front Page to the porn industry? I bet 90% of the porn sites out there were created by it.

Microsoft continues to damage the economy by their actions. :(

Stupid, yes. Violates your rights, no. (1)

PieceMaker (16268) | about 13 years ago | (#2330448)

MS is clearly stupid to include this in their EULA. However, they are not violating your rights to free speech. Since the terms for this product are so odious, don't buy it. And make a stink agout the EULA so they get bad press over it. But you still have the ability to express yourself through web pages. That has not been lost. Your rights are still intact.

returns? (1)

larsu (473425) | about 13 years ago | (#2330450)

I hope you returned the software to your place of purchase for a full refund, under the terms of not agreeing to the EULA. Hate to give those bastard MS people 1 more cent than you have to.


LinkDJ (163960) | about 13 years ago | (#2330451)

Are you actually saying that Microsoft is doing something that the general public dosen't agree with? Could it be possible that the company _everybody+ loves and trusts, microsoft, could actually be doing something wrong?!?!

Nah, couldn't be.

The best thing for Open source software !! (1)

sniters (164729) | about 13 years ago | (#2330452)

IMHO if M$ continues to add such terms to the licence agreement, many corporation will find a real advantage in using Open Source.

This may be the break Linux and the other plateforms needed to break into the corporate and consumer's market.

Now if they start enforcing those licences, they will pay in terms of sales.

Is that legal in the US (0)

sysv (220133) | about 13 years ago | (#2330454)

I allays thought that freedom of speech was one of the first things in the US constitution. If so, how can this hold up in cord?
Sorry for the spelling errors
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?