Microsoft To Issue Blanket License To NGOs 255
itwbennett writes "Following a recent report that Russian police have used software copyright raids to seize computers of activist groups, Microsoft announced it will issue a blanket software license to nonprofit groups and journalist groups outside the US. The new blanket license should remove software piracy as an excuse for 'nefarious actions' by enforcement authorities, Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith wrote. The new license 'cuts in one swoop the Gordian knot that otherwise is getting in the way of our desired handling of these legal issues,' he said. 'The law in Russia (and many other countries) requires that one must provide truthful information about the facts in response to a subpoena or other judicial process. With this new software license, we effectively change the factual situation at hand. Now our information will fully exonerate any qualifying [nonprofit], by showing that it has a valid license to our software.'"
and the qualifier is... (Score:5, Insightful)
And the qualifier is, of course, "qualifying." The article doesn't say who qualifies, and says that journalists and NGOs don't have to do anything to get the license, which means they don't find out that they don't qualify until they're in the same situation they're already facing, I guess.
Re:and the qualifier is... (Score:5, Interesting)
And the qualifier is, of course, "qualifying." The article doesn't say who qualifies
The article does not, because it talks about a future event ("will issue a license"). I would imagine that the text of said license would go for over 40 pages (as usual) detailing out who qualifies for what.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me help. Non-US NGOs.
Feel better?
Re: (Score:2)
Let me help. Non-US NGOs.
Do/will the Russians botnet herders qualify? After all, they are NGO-es.
Oh okay, here is the evil bit (Score:3, Insightful)
How else could NGO's and such avoid license fees and license nightmares? Why, use opensource. Install linux. Free too.
So to avoid people shifting to an OS that doesn't get you raided, MS offers its software free to a market that isn't exactly rolling in cash anyway. Kinda like the free licenses to schools. The first one is always free.
Now this IS a nice thing MS is doing, IF it doesn't come with the usual hooks, but it is also a good business move.
Mind you, for MS this is amazing :) Something that is goo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How else could NGO's and such avoid license fees and license nightmares? Why, use opensource. Install linux. Free too.
How, exactly, does this prevent a raid looking for pirated Microsoft stuff? The authorities won't find anything, but without the blanket license, the pretext still exists.
Ah fuck! (Score:5, Funny)
Weird shit has been happening to me since I started taking Ambien!
Re:and the qualifier is... (Score:5, Interesting)
And the qualifier is, of course, "qualifying." The article doesn't say who qualifies, and says that journalists and NGOs don't have to do anything to get the license, which means they don't find out that they don't qualify until they're in the same situation they're already facing, I guess.
This isn't the sort of situation where microsoft would be trying to weasel. More importantly, the way it worked from what I can tell, is that russian authorities needed Microsoft lawyers to essentially sign-off on the complaints against dissidents -- they'd indicate they had "reason to beleive" group-X was using priated software, and the MS-attack-lawyers would say 'raid away'.
This change is essentially instructions from Microsoft to its own legal counsel saying if its an NGO or Journalist etc then they have a license, and not to be party to police requests.
Strictly speaking they could instruct their lawyers to refuse to pursue cases against NGOs and so on without the license, but this 'grant of license' is:
a) good PR
b) makes it harder (impossible?) to for the police to build a software piracy case as long as the legal system isn't competely subverted. The Microsoft lawyer simply says "they are licensed" end of story. He doesn't have to say, something like "my client isn't interested in prosecuting a case against them". Its more thorough and complete this way. It changes from "they might be doing something wrong, but we don't care to find out" to "we are completely satisfied that they are licensed".
which means they don't find out that they don't qualify until they're in the same situation they're already facing, I guess.
As you can see they don't really need to "know they qualify". The protection is indirect - its really more a way to give microsoft's lawyers an out from having to cooperate with russian police against NGOs more than direct protection for the end user. At least that's how i read it.
Re:and the qualifier is... (Score:5, Informative)
Also, in the previous cases they don't really say "my client does not want to press the issues" - Russian government had started a criminal process, and as in most criminal process the 'victim' does not get a choice to stop the persecution, and granting a license after a request would not help either (as the violation occurred in the past, when the license was not there yet) - so if the prosecutors want to press charges, they have a valid case.
These same issues may apply to any other country where criminal penalties apply for copyright violations.
Re:and the qualifier is... (Score:5, Funny)
MS Exec: Oh shit, our name is being dragged through the mud big time and we didn't really lift a finger to stop it happening. This is bad. This is costing us more money in lost reputation than it would cost us just to give everyone a license. Joe, get right on it!
Joe: Yessir! Free copies coming right out.
MS Exec: Also, can we put a spin on this to say that we are supporting victims, journalists and fighting organized crime and extortion?
Joe: Sure thing boss. Spin is being added now!
MS Exec: Righto, that's the morning done for me, time for a coffee. Hmmm, Joe, how can we squeeze some more money out of people?
Joe: Well, with all that free time now, perhaps we can set the lawyers on the EU again? What about we put Google through another adwords privacy scandal? Maybe we just give them a week off and feed them some more children, you know it's been almost a whole month since they last tasted child flesh...
MS Exec: Make it happen Joe. You will go a long way here someday...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not true. Victims might have a hard time getting prosecutors to go after a case, but I made a living getting "victims" to sign statements saying that they would not testify if they went to court, and they were always, always dropped. That was many years ago, but I can't see that being any different now, at least in the USA.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
and the qualifier is... the F_CKING GOVERNMENT! (Score:2, Redundant)
The local government decides what organization "qualifies" for exemption, as M$ must "obey local laws."
Wanna guess what organization will NOT be granted the exemption?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? If Microsoft is granting the license, how are they not in complete control over what entities qualify?
Re: (Score:2)
And it doesn't really matter, so long as you fill in the application form to tell them all about your organisation, tell MS whether it's worth having a sales rep call you, and educate yourself about Microsoft's offerings.
Maybe if you're a really big target segment and very likely to go open source, they'll shove exchange or something like that down your throat for free. You'll end up paying for all the basic functionality
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are all sorts of non profit and not for profit organizations all over the world, just as there are all sorts of "journalists" all over the world. Microsoft wants to look good and protect small non profits and journalists from government interference. They don't want to allow NBC or Fox to call their entire staff "journalists" and get out of paying license fees, or allow larger not for profit organizations to do the same. Which is fair enough. I work for a not for profit which has revenues approaching
Re: (Score:2)
My thinking on this was, unless you know for sure that you are covered by this, what's to stop MS from deciding that for, whatever reason, they agree with the FSB or whomever raiding your office and allowing trumped-up piracy issues to be used as the pretense.
The only reason MS is doing this now is because they got called out in the New York Times and some other major papers for basically being an active participant in providing a rational for squashing dissent. This whole idea that these same organization
Re: (Score:2)
And the qualifier is, of course, "qualifying." The article doesn't say who qualifies, and says that journalists and NGOs don't have to do anything to get the license,
NGO... Hmmm... Would, for instance, Lukoil qualify? Because they don't seem to have any gov ownership [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You have no idea what an NGO actually is, do you.
It doesn't matter what I understand, and it doesn't matter what MS would understand (if it is not phrased carefully). What matters it what the Russians will understand or choose to understand in the context of their legislation.
As the parent post noted: while MS intentions (in this instance) may be well meant, it just doesn't mean they'll have the desired effect: not without due care being paid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Right and by using something like that as the guide, then when Russia says Journalist X is a terrorist, M$ can say "no they aren't, they aren't on the State Department or Interpol's list."
I'm waiting for Wikileaks to make State's list
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm waiting for Wikileaks to make State's list
If you're being serious, you really and truly need to seek psychiatric help. Some level of general paranoia is justified, and might even be warranted, but anyone who honestly thinks that wikileaks is going to make a terrorist list has stepped way off the beaten path.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No price or freedom (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not criticising this move. It's the start of the right thing to do. But lets not forget that although the price will be zeroed, the NGO's will still not be able to see what the software is doing, will still not be able to change the software.
NGO's should use free software.
Re:No price or freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Most opposition NGOs in Russia are routinely harassed by the government while trying to expose many cases of corruption and widespread violation of human rights. Some (albeit, thankfully, very few so far) are imprisoned, others are beaten by thugs who are then conveniently never found by police.
The issue of "being able to change the software" simply doesn't enter into the picture - I mean, do you seriously think these folk have the time to submit kernel patches? For most of them, computer is just a tool to do what they think of as their civic duty, one among many other such tools.
It's not about submitting kernel patches (Score:2)
It's not about submitting kernel patches. It's about seeing who's listening and being able to add security/anonymity/privacy features.
Those thugs don't just arrive randomly.
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point. We aren't talking about a spy network or some kind of Underground Railroad here. What these organizations do, they do legally and out in the open. They don't hide information, because they would have to divulge it by court order, anyway (and a court order is trivial to obtain in such cases).
And the thugs? Of course they don't arrive randomly. They arrive specifically to offices of organizations who openly oppose the government and/or its various initiatives.
Re: (Score:2)
Some things will be public, like press releases and public statements.
But having worked in NGOs, there are also things that are private, such as who you are in contact with, and what insider is leaking stuff to you or giving you a nod when something's worth reacting to.
I'm not saying that safe software turns countries into a wonderland, but it's one of the ingredients.
And in reply to other comments, it's not about each employee having the source, it's about the whold world having the source. When there are
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No price or freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to mention increased protection from prying eyes. If I was criticizing a government known for harassing its opponents I sure as shit wouldn't be using something as insecure as Windows.
Good call. Because there's absolutely no way in hell that the Russian government has people who could hack backdoors into open source, compile it, and surreptitiously install it onto rooted Linux systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, if you have root then what is the point of compiling and surreptitiously installing compromised code on the machine, YOU ALREADY HAVE FUCKING ROOT! It's no different than Windows(other than the fact that its harder to actually root a linux box, rooting windows is pretty trivial). I can compile and
Re: (Score:2)
"Um, if you have root then what is the point of compiling and surreptitiously installing compromised code on the machine, YOU ALREADY HAVE FUCKING ROOT!"
The key word is "surreptitiously", as in you don't want them to know they are rooted.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's no different than Windows
I think that's his point.
(other than the fact that its harder to actually root a linux box, rooting windows is pretty trivial)
In the old days yes, now not so much. It's a lot of social engineering these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Writing kernel extensions for Windows(which in most situations is pretty much like changing the kernel, at least from a hackers perspective) isn't really that much different than writing them for Linux.
So what is the definition of a "kernel extension" then? I was under the impression that modifying the kernel in Windows is pretty much a no-no these days. I don't really know much about it, but I understood that antivirus apps used to operate by hooking the Windows kernel and post Vista SP2(?) that's not allowed anymore.
Is a kernel extension the same concept, or are you speaking of kernel modifications that explicitly require recompiling the kernel itself? Aren't device drivers kernel extensions in this
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree with this: Russian law enforcement and government folks don't need copyright laws and Microsoft to hack or harass dissenters. But I'll go further: they don't generally need back doors at all, because they have no problem with kicking down the front door and dragging citizens out into the street,
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:No price or freedom (Score:5, Interesting)
But did you build your OS via tapping bits onto the SATA bus with a paperclip? Otherwise you have no idea what your OS is putting in there. See Ken Thompson Reflections on Trusting Trust. [bell-labs.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No price or freedom (Score:4, Funny)
I trust only the ABACUS I WHITTLED from a tree I GREW MYSELF!
Re: (Score:2)
You mean, like all Russian students [slashdot.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
Not really.
It mostly applies in cases where you're suspected.
The part that makes you a terrorist (sarcasm warning) is the part where your unusual operating system choice interferes with the investigative tools favored by the cops.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I know this isn't you, but some people care about getting shit done and have no interest in dicking around in the guts of their software.
For most tasks, that includes me, and I've been a programmer since childhood.
And that probably goes double for NGOs (Score:2, Insightful)
NGOs are full of starry idealist types usually, but they are busy being idealistic about their given cause. Often it is something really important, like distributing food to starving people, or vaccinating against deadly, but preventable diseases or shit like that. They do not have time to get all starry eyed about your chosen cause as well, software freedom in this case. They can't go and spend the time to become programmers just so they can "see what the software is doing."
Linux users may not like to admi
Re: (Score:2)
More freedom is better than less, even if it most people never need to be use it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However, that's not what the story is about. Instead, foreign police forces didn't need a "government backdoor" - instead, they'd use an investigation into a potential technical legal violation (think of how Al Capone was ultimately convicted of tax evasion and you'll get the idea), ask MS to provide eno
Re:No price or freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
You know the scenes in WWII movies (e.g. Casablanca) where the resistance or their allies provide bogus "authorization" papers to the Good Guys so they can evade arrest by the Nazis? That's kinda what MS is doing here. They're trying to be non-evil; give them credit for it.
Re: (Score:2)
I know this isn't you, but some people care about getting shit done and have no interest in dicking around in the guts of their software.
For most tasks, that includes me, and I've been a programmer since childhood.
It's not an issue of "digging around the guts", it's simply that the software is more trustworthy, because the development process is transparent.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe NGOs will start using free software when you stop using apostrophes to create plurals.
Re: (Score:2)
Humorous, but pls lrn2grammar: :-p :-) :smileynose)
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/acronyms.html [wsu.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
But lets not forget that although the price will be zeroed, the NGO's will still not be able to see what the software is doing, will still not be able to change the software.
Maybe they don't want to. Maybe they don't need to.
Maybe the time and money isn't there.
Maybe it matters more that an NGO's staff and volunteers have the software they know how to use and are comfortable in using.
Maybe it's the the job that matters and not ideological purity or political correctness.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not criticising this move. It's the start of the right thing to do. But lets not forget that although the price will be zeroed, the NGO's will still not be able to see what the software is doing, will still not be able to change the software.
NGO's should use free software.
Your logic is infallible.
Re: (Score:2)
And, in response to the inevitable "there's just no time or will to use FOSS". Just use Fedora.
The Fedora group cares about the software freedom, and integrates the whole thing for you into a working system. If you are an NGO, go ahead and contact them -- they may even be delighted to support you directly.
Re: (Score:2)
LoB
Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope. Attitudes like ours is what started the American and French revolutions.
If you are being abused by the corporate aristocracy then perhaps it's time to overthrow the aristocracy.
You don't even have to believe in the whole "software freedom" thing to realize that the whole software license management thing is a huge burden and bother.
Being an accidental pirate as a corporation is much like being in violation of some obscure subtle law that most people (including actual cops) wouldn't recognize as a "federal offense".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nope. Attitudes like ours is what started the American and French revolutions.
The French Revolution rapidly degenerated. It got really, really stinky. The American Revolution wasn't really a revolution. More of an anti-colonial thing.
Re:No. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Encryption won't solve the problem - they'll just torture the information they need out of those that have it. It's far better to just encapsulate the knowledge, make sure that nobody knows enough to bring down the entire organization, and hope for the best.
So let me get this straight... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Funny)
In Soviet Russia, Microsoft protects you from government.
Blanket License? (Score:2)
I didn't realise you needed a license to own a blanket.
How does Linus feel about this?
Re: (Score:2)
Nor do daemons.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, no. The other [wikipedia.org] Linus.
Microsoft treats non-profits very well (Score:5, Informative)
I used to work for a 501c3 non-profit and we got ridiculously good deals on Microsoft licensing. Everything from server licenses, to Office suite, Exchange and the whole Back Office line of products (SQL, Sharepoint, etc). I know that our Office licenses (for the Professional edition) were in the neighborhood of $30 a piece. That included a provision that allowed the users to have a copy of the program on their home computer as well.
Educational institutions too (Score:5, Insightful)
For instructional use, they give us software for free. We decided to just go and get their software assurance pack (more or less a site license for their software for any use) and it is extremely cheap on a yearly basis. Students get massive discounts, and the get to keep the license when they leave and use it for any purpose, including for profit.
MS and Adobe are actually two of the best companies for cutting educational institutions a break. Some of the engineering companies... Well they are assholes :P.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Second this.
I work for the Canadian branch of an international NGO, and MS almost throws software at us - we recently were donated $50 000 MSRP of software from MS. We paid $2300 in "administration fees" - which pay for two years of Software Assurance, downloads, customer service, tech support, etc.
Most software companies are generous to registered NGOs.
We do use *nix for many things, most of our network infrastructure is *nix. It just makes sense. But for the users, who know Office and Windows, we can't ju
So how does one qualify? (Score:3, Interesting)
Which organizations? How will Microsoft define "journalist"? Will bloggers qualify? Does the journalist, the publication, and/or the group need to be outside the US?
Will they get a license key and support?
So very naive. Do they think they are getting IP enforcement externalities for free?
Re: (Score:2)
You're going too far - MS doesn't need to define who is covered, and don't need to provide license keys or support, they simply need to be able to liberally grant requesting NGOs / any other person licenses when they are politically harassed using license non-compliance as a reason. If and only if volume becomes a problem do they need better processes & policies.
It's forgoing minimum incremental revenue in the pursuit of good corporate citizenship (apparently, and in this particular instance).
"So
NGOs should change to Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
I have argued that NGOs should change to Linux to avoid this very vulnerability. Some have even done so at my suggestion. I suspect at root that with this move Microsoft is parrying this very trend. And looking good while doing so. Of course NGOs should still use Linux for many reasons. Especially since much of the pirate software on their boxes is not MS and this still leaves them vulnerable. Most work done by NGOs can be accomplished by FOSS. Linux and NGOs are a natural fit.
Of course a bully needs only the weakest excuse so the official harassment will continue despite whatever OS or resources are used.
Mighty nice of them (Score:2)
Was that a pig i just saw fly by?
well that was odd (Score:3, Informative)
I may never have a reason to say this ever again so, well done!
Did the thermostats in Hell just drop? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It only covers organizations that fight against OTHER countries' governments, thus including all CIA front groups. American NGOs still have to pay for Microsoft software.
Interesting, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's an interesting concept, but won't government agents with an agenda simply look to non-Microsoft software as an excuse for a raid?
Re:Interesting, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
... won't government agents with an agenda simply look to non-Microsoft software as an excuse for a raid?
It might mean a change in excuse by the Russian cops. After all, if you're running linux or *BSD or other free software, you have a license to run it. Just keep copies of the GPL and other appropriate licenses around to show people.
Of course, this won't really stop the raids and theft of computers. It'll just mean that "suspected software piracy" won't be the excuse it has been. The government's creative types will think up other wordings.
It is sorta funny that the Russian cops don't seem to be raiding the botnet operators and other spam operations, which seem to be headquartered in Russia in great numbers these days. I wonder why that might be?
Nice try (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So, what you're saying is, this is a win-win scenario for both Microsoft and non-US NGOs. Don't they teach win-win being a wonderful thing at school?
Re: (Score:2)
So, what you're saying is, this is a win-win scenario for both Microsoft and non-US NGOs. Don't they teach win-win being a wonderful thing at school?
You are thinking of the elusive "win-win-win.....win"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Young campaigners are exposed to MS products telling their friends and family
Re:hmm... (Score:5, Informative)
It will be interesting, but it only lasts until 2012. It's hard to believe they would extend it longer.
Apparently it's an interim measure while NGOs learn that they can take part in an existing program involving "donation" of software to non-profits. End result is effectively the same, as you get free licenses, but donations are to a specific org, whereas this is meant to be a blanket license to shield everyone from abuse right here and now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They won't have to register though, what will happen is they will simply say to that they are fully licensed until 2012.
In the meantime, they promote to said organizations through other channels the donation-based options for getting Microsoft software. That is, free (as in beer) software.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I know enough about MS to know they don't give anything away free without there being some alterior motive.
It suffices to know how any major corporation behaves in that regard, MS is no different. They are, by definition, money-making machines.
And the "ulterior motive" - how about good PR; or damage control for existing bad PR (which, ultimately, reflects on sales)?
Coincidentally, it's why it's always worth pointing it out when such things happen. Reputation is also a resource, and corporations will spend money doing damage control when that resource is threatened. And, more often than not, said damage control m
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Not that I'm an MS fan but people who pirate software these days when there are usually very good legally free alternatives are hypocrites who deserve all they get.
What makes them hypocritical? To be hypocritical they'd have to start their own software company and loudly complain when other people pirated their product.
Re:What about here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What about here? (Score:5, Insightful)
So far as my limited understanding of US copyright law goes, the government cannot sue someone for copyright infringement on behalf of the rights owner; the latter actually has to initiate the process. In Russia (and a few other places), this is not the case - copyright infringement (even small-scale) is a criminal matter, and prosecuted as such by the state, with or without cooperation from the rights owner. This is what made possible the abuse in this particular case. It's actually hinted at in TFS:
The law in Russia (and many other countries) requires that one must provide truthful information about the facts in response to a subpoena or other judicial process. With this new software license, we effectively change the factual situation at hand.
The situation before was like this: say, Russian police gets a tip from "above" to harass a particular NGO. They raid the offices on some premise (it's not US, so there are many ways to legitimize such a raid) and confiscate a bunch of PCs. They then subpoena MS to testify whether software on those PCs, in which MS holds copyrights, is legitimately owned or copyright-infringing. Chances are high that at least a few boxes would have something unlicensed on them - and if they don't, you can always plant it there (rumor it is that it's precisely what they did in the case in question), so MS says "yes, some of that is not licensed". Police then takes it to state prosecutor which uses it as the grounds for the copyright infringement case.
The whole point of this blanket license is so that, if govt tries that trick again in the future, MS can say that all software in question is legally used, without even having to look at it. Hence there would be no grounds for a lawsuit.
Though something tells me that they'll just start looking for pirated Photoshop etc from now on.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up, it's nowhere near flamebait. WTF!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
most people use Linux because it does what they need an OS to do
Very true. I find Windows to be the best (and most aesthetically appealing -- aero is some good stuff :P) environment for the majority of tasks that I do. For manipulating raw disk images though, the tools available for Windows pale in comparison to those on Linux. I keep that Ubuntu VM around for the inverse of the reasons that the Linux zealots keep the XP VM on their desktops ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell is this? Rational thought on Slashdot? Dammit man what are you DOING!? You know we're supposed to push Linux as the be-all and end-all of software in the Universe - whether it runs your applications or not, whether it has drivers or not, whether you like it or not. It's FREE man!
It's simple, OK? If the apps you want don't work, you must find or write the replacement (even if the only programming you've ever done was managing to set the clock on your VCR to 1am. Once. And now the only way you c
Re:Weird terminology (Score:5, Funny)
Am I supposed to know what a "blanket software license" is?
If American English is your primary language, yes.
If not, know that here in America, we license our electric blanket software (the programs that tell a blanket when its getting too hot). Sure, some hip nerds install Linux on theirs so they can literally feel the system load, but most people just think of electric blankets as appliances.
Re: (Score:2)
"Blanket license" is a pretty common term - it means that the license applies to everyone in the class, regardless of whether or not they have signed a specific agreement with Microsoft.
Re:Linux and BSD ... (Score:5, Interesting)
The irony is that you can still end up in court for running Linux on PCs without "licenses", because the police don't understand it, and will only take those shiny holographic stickers as a proof that your software is "licensed". It's boneheaded, but some Russian Linux distribution companies have since started selling special stickers for Linux just for this purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't Linux users already have all sorts of paraphernalia [bonanzle.com] to celebrate their iconoclastic nature [zazzle.com]?
Who's going to notice another sticker [cafepress.com] in that mess?
Re:Tax breaks (Score:4, Informative)
I think you are misinterpreting that paragraph; and thus not giving Microsoft their due credit.
It is saying that Microsoft already does run a ‘donation’ program to NGOs that likely does allow them tax deductions at no cost. But that’s not what this is. By instantly creating a license that any NGO can use for free; they cannot claim a deduction. For a deduction, they would have to get the NGO/journalist to go through specific channels so that they could document the ‘donation’. And that of course if why they want to move people to their donation program.
This is talked about in a bit more detail in the Microsoft blog entry that announced it. I would expect this to make it a bit more difficult to get NGOs to use their donation program since the motivation for jumping through the hooks is less.
This is a fantastic program and Microsoft should be commended for it. Even on Slashdot.
Now, getting deductions for software (or other IP) donations in general is ridiculous and something that governments should reconsider. Any business deduction where they can control the value of the donation by their pricing is somewhat shady. But this license does not seem to be taking advantage of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if they're in Russia.
Ummm, no
From the New Your Times article:
The policy could have repercussions beyond Russia because the company indicated that it would apply to other countries as well, though it did not identify them.
From the IT World article:
Microsoft announced it will issue a blanket software license to nonprofit groups and journalist groups outside the US
Since when does "outside the US" translate to "only if they're in Russia"?
While it may indeed only apply to Russia, there is at least implication that it does not and may apply to everywhere outside of the US.