Mark S. wrote in said:
Bjorn Simonsen wrote to alt.comp.freeware on Sat, 27 Mar 2004 19:28:34 +
0100, the following ...
I am sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but you need to stop and think:
[...]
At the time I made that statement, I had made it very clear that I had
NOT installed the software.
You do not need to install it to understand it is not legal. If you
think you need to do that just to find out who owns it, you can
extract the command.com file and have a look inside it, search for the
word copyright and there - in plain text, it says:
(C)Copyright Microsoft Corp 1981-1999
and not the "China Dos Union" or whatever (not that it would have made
it any more legal if it had, but this piece of information alone
should be enough to convince anyone not yet convinced about its
illegal status. Common sense assumed).
Because it says "MS-DOS" on the wrapping means nothing.
Use of the name "MS-DOS": the package is labeled and distributed "as"
MS-DOS, and not just "for" or say "compatible with". And it is
distributed not by MS but by someone who says he represent the "China
Dos Union": ergo at minimum a trademark infringement. Not that this is
anything a user could be arrested for I guess, but still - this should
ring a bell of caution, as in not to take anything you read provided
by the source of the distro or the way it "looks" at face value.
I get lots of emails and on the wrapping it says they are
from Microsoft and they look very authentic also. As large a company as
Microsoft is, it would also seem logical to think that since it's been
available for at least 4 months, that Microsoft would have heard about it
and at least notified people that it was not a valid MS product.
Well at least this logic leads up to a conclusion which (although
flawed) may serve as a convenient justification, like: if it was
illegal MS would surely have done something about it by now - at least
issued a warning, but since they haven't - or I haven't seen any - it
must be legal to use, share and promote. But to claim something must
be legal simply because they do not *seem* to have done anything about
it yet, is like claiming it must be legal to steal because you haven't
been arrested for it yet.
As for the premise underpinning said reasoning, that MS would have
responded by now if it was illegal, here are some reasons why this is
perhaps not a very reasonable assumption:
(1) First off, how do you know they haven't? The distribution site got
a new URL, you provided it here. How do you know the reason is not
that MS managed to shut down their previous site/page?
(2) MS-DOS piracy today is probably no great money drain for MS, for
obvious reasons. In other words it makes sense if MS-DOS piracy is not
very high on the to-do list in Microsoft's legal department (or their
PR department). I would guess they have their hands full with more
pressing issues.
(3) 4 months is not a long time in the legal world, on the contrary,
and particularly not across borders.
(4) China is perhaps not the easiest place to pursue legal issues
re property rights.
(5) MS is a large company/organization as you say. But as most large
organization, their apparatus probably move very slowly most of the
time (but fast when issues costly to them is at stake). To illustrate
how slow they can "move": Windows Commander, a very well known
shareware app - had been on the market under that name in over 9
years, until MS sent the author a warning... drop the "Windows" part
of the name or else (trademark infringement). And so he wisely changed
the name, to Total Commander. In short, in some areas or cases MS
moves very slowly, even when their trademark names and other rights
are involved. This case might very well be one of them.
Just maybe, inside of these disk images which I downloaded is a FREE
VIRUS. I won't know for sure until I try to install it.
I understand now you are not about to be seriously misled then. That
is good. Sorry if I got that impression, but your message obviously
led me into thinking you were.
Just to be clear about my motives here: I dislike seeing people being
mislead, like when installing software they belive is freeware when it
is in fact something else, like as in this case pirated software. Same
way I dislike seeing people being misled into installing spyware or
other such nasties. But I don't care if anyone should rip off MS (MS
can care for them selves). Nor do I care if anyone _choose_ to use
illegal software, as long as they do not promote it here. The latter,
promoting it here, also goes for information and/or arguments posted
here that could mislead people into believing said distro's claimed
freeware status. Notice that I do not say you, Roger, or anyone have
willfully tried to mislead anyone, only that your messages cold result
in it - if unchallenged.
All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen
