> Actually, msoft had (still has?) a clause that says you can't use VC++
> to build a competitor to MS Office.

> Pretty sick if you ask me.

Consider the way they work. Like a good firewall. First close all openings
(don't give anybody any rights), then grudgingly and gnashingly give them
what you absolutely have to. Voila, the exact semantic and functional
opposite of Open Source.

I am not a lawyer but I believe that the EULA is a masterpiece. It gives
full confidence while giving no rights, no warranty, and they keep the
money. You don't even own what you paid for. Wonderful. I wish I could
market my projects that way. Several clauses of their EULA are illegal in
Germany and other places because of the no warranty item, and others. Do
you realise what would happen if every user whose machine crashes under
some version of their OS would try to go after them under warranty terms ?

So the only legal difference wrt Open Source is the money. Which they get
to keep.

Apropos NDA, it sounds like they need a lot of paying beta testers and IP
idea sources they can patent later (also paying) (wrt the OP). I hope I am
wrong.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body