The problem -- should I say the *continuing* problem -- is that Microsoft is involved. The operative word is "should"; MS has ignorned that premise from the get-go. And anyone who thinks they can prevail over MS in court, has to be both "Richer than Croeceus" and with access to the fountain of youth. Might doesn't make right, but in the case of MS "Might makes wrong profitable and the winner." ==== On Wed, 26 Sep 2001 10:21:48 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > On Wed, 26 Sep 2001 05:27:48 -0400 (EDT), Thomas Mueller wrote: >> Some MS software carries license restrictions prohibiting criticism of >> Microsoft, and Front Page could not be used to produce a Web site putting >> Microsoft in a bad light. > I don't think such a license restriction would be held as legal if > challenged in court. It seems to be an abridgement of free speech. > Allowing such a restriction to stand is equivalent to permitting > a typewriter manufacturer to include a terms of use license with his > product which prohibits the user from using the typewriter to > criticise the manufacturer. The typewriter, like MicroSoft Front > Page, is only a writing tool. If it doesn't work the way you think > it should, you should have the right to use the tool for the > purpose of criticising it. Suppose I were to buy an adjustable > wrench which is advertised to fit bolts and nuts up to one inch. > If it will only fit bolts and nuts up to 15/16, I should be allowed > to use the tool to demonstrate that it won't work as advertised. -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
