MSIE 7 May Beat Longhorn Out The Gate

  • Thread starter Thread starter dszady
  • Start date Start date
Shooot, that was the only thing I wanted to know, as that's how
this discussion got started.
Click to expand...

Still no comment, but I'll give a meta-comment. <g>

When the questions of "what is freeware," "what is on-topic," "what
is acceptable to recommend," and "what is acceptable as
pricelessware" are conflated, it leads to those giant clusterfsck
threads we have occasionally. They're related but distinct, and
we as a group (me included) have trouble sorting these things out. I
think the discussion Susan kicked off on "wares type acceptability"
was a big step in the right direction.
Noted.
Click to expand...

I'd actually prefer that "legally" modify both "obtain" and "use."

Must be legally obtainable at no cost, monetary or otherwise.
Must be legally usable at no cost, monetary or otherwise, for as
long as you wish.

It's tricky to get the modifiers in the right places in a single
sentence without creating a horrible structure.

(Susan, I did see your note to me last time we went over this, but I
didn't get a chance to really look until too late.)
Thank you for making your points in a very clear and civilized
way. Instead of agreeing to disagree, you convinced me, IE is
commercial. As for it being on- or offtopic, now I'm not even sure
anymore.
Click to expand...

Something is badly wrong; this is not how Usenet is supposed to
work. ;)

If Microsoft just dropped that silly clause from the EULA, it
/would/ be freeware. And AFAICT, the only purpose that clause
serves is to pay lip service to Microsoft's opposition to "piracy."

Thanks for the kind words, and thank you for hashing this out with
me in a civil way. I can only hope that in the future I'll be as
open to listening to opposing arguments as you have been here.
 
»Q« said:
Right. They bought IE/OE along with that licence. They get free
upgrades to the broswer suite they bought, but free upgrades to
paid-for software are not freeware.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It's been proven that Windows, as an operating system, can get
along fine without IE or OE.
When you pay for a version of a Windows OS you aren't paying for IE or
OE; there are no limitations to using either program as long as you are
using them with the OS they were intended to be used with. IE and OE are
freeware.
"Many" is a relative term, so YMMV. You can have a look at the 2004
list, sorted by ware type, at
<http://pricelesswarehome.org/2004/PL2004ProgramIndex.php?sortby=Ware_type>.
None of it is as far from the spirit of freeware as IE/OE
is, with the possible exception of the nagware Trillian.


I guess it's freeware; I don't know.
Click to expand...

I don't know, either. Anyone care to post a "handy" link to the MAC IE
EULA?
A lot of people here and else wherehave valid licences for Ahead
cd-burning software and can download free upgrades, yet it's not
freeware.


No comment.


It's commercial software.
Click to expand...

It's freeware.
I'll go with the group's concensus.

Freeware: Legally obtainable software that you may use at no cost,
monetary or otherwise, for as long as you wish.

In the case of IE/OE for Windows, the cost is monetary.
Click to expand...

Maybe that definition needs to be changed. There's no way *any* software
could meet that requirement.
 
Wrong. It's been proven that Windows, as an operating system, can
get along fine without IE or OE.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that has been shown, but even if so, the ability to
disable parts of a payware OS does not make those parts of the OS
freeware.

In case you meant to argue that they are not even part of the
operating system, here's a bit of the clickwrapped supplemental EULA
attached to the current version of IE/OE:

IMPORTANT: READ CAREFULLY - These Microsoft operating system
components, including any "online" or electronic documentation
("OS Components") are subject to the terms and conditions of the
agreement under which you have licensed the applicable Microsoft
operating system product [. . .]

"These Microsoft operating system components" refers to IE/OE.
When you pay for a version of a Windows OS you aren't paying for
IE or OE;
Click to expand...

IE/OE is sold to you as a feature of the OS and as part of the "core
technology" of the OS. You buy your licence for IE/OE at exactly
the same time you buy your licence for the other components sold as
a bundle; there is currently no other way to obtain a legal licence
for IE/OE.
 
»Q« said:
Something is badly wrong; this is not how Usenet is supposed to
work. ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, it's scary. This thread looks like a manual for sock puppets.
If Microsoft just dropped that silly clause from the EULA, it
/would/ be freeware. And AFAICT, the only purpose that clause
serves is to pay lip service to Microsoft's opposition to "piracy."

Thanks for the kind words, and thank you for hashing this out with
me in a civil way. I can only hope that in the future I'll be as
open to listening to opposing arguments as you have been here.
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with a fair discussion and good arguments are hard to
ignore. In fact that's what Usenet is meant for in my opinion, exchange
information, views and opinions and learn from that.

Rod
(leaving for holiday in eastern europe for a couple of weeks)
 
»Q« said:
I don't believe that has been shown, but even if so, the ability to
disable parts of a payware OS does not make those parts of the OS
freeware.
Click to expand...

Aren't there programs that can remove IE and OE from the Windows OS?
In case you meant to argue that they are not even part of the
operating system, here's a bit of the clickwrapped supplemental EULA
attached to the current version of IE/OE:

IMPORTANT: READ CAREFULLY - These Microsoft operating system
components, including any "online" or electronic documentation
("OS Components") are subject to the terms and conditions of the
agreement under which you have licensed the applicable Microsoft
operating system product [. . .]

"These Microsoft operating system components" refers to IE/OE.
Click to expand...

I would think that the references to MS OS components refer to the
Windows OS; then again, I suppose it's all psychobabble rap to me.
IE/OE is sold to you as a feature of the OS and as part of the "core
technology" of the OS. You buy your licence for IE/OE at exactly
the same time you buy your licence for the other components sold as
a bundle; there is currently no other way to obtain a legal licence
for IE/OE.
Click to expand...

So, you're saying that the only way to consider Internet Explorer and
Outlook Express as freeware is if they were available to every operating
system without restriction?

How are we to apply those same standards to all Operating Systems?
 
Aren't there programs that can remove IE and OE from the Windows
OS?
Click to expand...

Sorta-kinda. They remove parts of it, AFAIK.
In case you meant to argue that they are not even part of the
operating system, here's a bit of the clickwrapped supplemental
EULA attached to the current version of IE/OE:

IMPORTANT: READ CAREFULLY - These Microsoft operating system
components, including any "online" or electronic documentation
("OS Components") are subject to the terms and conditions of
the agreement under which you have licensed the applicable
Microsoft operating system product [. . .]

"These Microsoft operating system components" refers to IE/OE.
Click to expand...

I would think that the references to MS OS components refer to the
Windows OS; then again, I suppose it's all psychobabble rap to me.
Click to expand...

As far its licencing is concerned, IE/OE is part of the Windows OS
product. It's not offered under a separate licence, just the one you
buy when you buy the entire product.
So, you're saying that the only way to consider Internet Explorer
and Outlook Express as freeware is if they were available to every
operating system without restriction?
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that as long as buying an IE/OE licence == buying a
Windows licence, it won't be freeware.
 
»Q« said:
Aren't there programs that can remove IE and OE from the Windows
OS?
Click to expand...

Sorta-kinda. They remove parts of it, AFAIK.
In case you meant to argue that they are not even part of the
operating system, here's a bit of the clickwrapped supplemental
EULA attached to the current version of IE/OE:

IMPORTANT: READ CAREFULLY - These Microsoft operating system
components, including any "online" or electronic documentation
("OS Components") are subject to the terms and conditions of
the agreement under which you have licensed the applicable
Microsoft operating system product [. . .]

"These Microsoft operating system components" refers to IE/OE.
Click to expand...

I would think that the references to MS OS components refer to the
Windows OS; then again, I suppose it's all psychobabble rap to me.
Click to expand...

As far its licencing is concerned, IE/OE is part of the Windows OS
product. It's not offered under a separate licence, just the one you
buy when you buy the entire product.
So, you're saying that the only way to consider Internet Explorer
and Outlook Express as freeware is if they were available to every
operating system without restriction?
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that as long as buying an IE/OE licence == buying a
Windows licence, it won't be freeware.
Click to expand...

Alright, your definition of freeware doesn't include any software that
requires the Windows OS.
You have a *very* strict definition of freeware. I can respect that and
continue to disagree with you in future discussions.
 
Alright, your definition of freeware doesn't include any software
that requires the Windows OS.
Click to expand...

Please don't put words in my mouth.

My definition of freeware doesn't include any software whose licence
must be paid for. If there is some reason I should consider IE/OE
to be freeware despite the fact that the licence to use it must be
bought with money, I'll listen.
You have a *very* strict definition of freeware.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, the idea that a licence to use freeware should be
given freely rather than sold for money is part of even the least
"strict" definitions of freeware.
 
»Q« said:
Please don't put words in my mouth.

My definition of freeware doesn't include any software whose licence
must be paid for. If there is some reason I should consider IE/OE
to be freeware despite the fact that the licence to use it must be
bought with money, I'll listen.
Click to expand...

Any program that requires a Windows OS, by necessity, requires a license
that you purchased from Microsoft. Microsoft just happens to include
that language in the license agreement. You can do that when you can
afford to pay a specialized team of lawyers.

How many freeware programs do we use that require a Windows OS to be
installed in order for us to use it? In my opinion, Internet Explorer's
and Outlook Express' licenses are no different from other freeware
programs which require that a Microsoft OS be installed in order to use
them. Distribution allowances may differ but usage requirements remain
the same.
On the contrary, the idea that a licence to use freeware should be
given freely rather than sold for money is part of even the least
"strict" definitions of freeware.
Click to expand...

That may be because many programmers don't have the wherewithal to
protect themselves legally.
 
In my opinion, Internet Explorer's and Outlook Express' licenses
are no different from other freeware programs which require that a
Microsoft OS be installed in order to use them.
Click to expand...

There are no "licences" here, just one licence. The IE/OE *is* the
Windows OS licence. That licence must be purchased with money, so I
don't see how you can regard it as a freeware licence.
That may be because many programmers don't have the wherewithal to
protect themselves legally.
Click to expand...

They could easily require payment for software licenses rather than
giving them away for free. They give the licences without charging for
them because they /want/ to.
 
Ben said:
(clipped)
Any program that requires a Windows OS, by necessity, requires a license
that you purchased from Microsoft. Microsoft just happens to include
that language in the license agreement. You can do that when you can
afford to pay a specialized team of lawyers.

How many freeware programs do we use that require a Windows OS to be
installed in order for us to use it? In my opinion, Internet Explorer's
and Outlook Express' licenses are no different from other freeware
programs which require that a Microsoft OS be installed in order to use
them. Distribution allowances may differ but usage requirements remain
the same. (clipped)
Click to expand...

Heh. And of course, there's always "Wine" for running some Windows
based programs in Linux. I wonder if IE would run under Wine.
 
berlin.de:

Ben, I feel you are being more than a little pendantic here. Windows OS is
an OPERATING SYSTEM, which is purchased from Microsoft (and included in the
price are the programs MS IE/OE).

The intention of the operating system is so that you can OPERATE your
computer and run programs (applications). Once you have purchased the
operating system then you can run any program you like, whether it be
commercial or freeware.

You seem to be stuck in a thought process that does not distinguish between
an OPERATING SYSTEM and a PROGRAM. Microsaft sells the operating system
with the intention that programs will be written to use that system. Saying
that a freeware program is not freeware simply because you need to purchase
an operating system is illogical.

Microsoft has never made IE or OE freeware, the upgrades are simply that
..... a free upgrade to a commercial program for licenced users. Similiarly,
upgrades to the operating system like the current XP SP2.

My original query of the OP's post still hasn't been answered. And that
was, why are some individuals FLAMED for off topic posts, but a select few
can post about MS IE, OE, XP SP2 upgrades without Corliss flaming them ??
 
Doctor said:
Ben Cooper wrote:

Ben, I feel you are being more than a little pendantic here. Windows OS is
an OPERATING SYSTEM, which is purchased from Microsoft (and included in the
price are the programs MS IE/OE).

The intention of the operating system is so that you can OPERATE your
computer and run programs (applications). Once you have purchased the
operating system then you can run any program you like, whether it be
commercial or freeware.

You seem to be stuck in a thought process that does not distinguish between
an OPERATING SYSTEM and a PROGRAM. Microsaft sells the operating system
with the intention that programs will be written to use that system. Saying
that a freeware program is not freeware simply because you need to purchase
an operating system is illogical.

Microsoft has never made IE
Click to expand...

That's incorrect. IE started out as a free-standing freeware from
Microsoft designed to compete with and eliminate Netscape (mainly.)

http://www.nwnetworks.com/iehistory.htm

Note the first paragraph under "Full Steam Ahead".
or OE freeware, the upgrades are simply that
.... a free upgrade to a commercial program for licenced users. Similiarly,
upgrades to the operating system like the current XP SP2.

My original query of the OP's post still hasn't been answered. And that
was, why are some individuals FLAMED for off topic posts, but a select few
can post about MS IE, OE, XP SP2 upgrades without Corliss flaming them ??
Click to expand...

I can answer that.

1. I don't start off flaming people. I simply mention that a post
is off topic when it's about non-freeware programs and may ask
that the OP not post such messages to this group. That can
escalate when people over-react.

2. It's not just a select few. Anybody can talk about MS IE, OE, XP
SP2 upgrades without me saying that the post is off topic (again,
I don't "flame" people to start with.) All of those upgrades are
freely available from MS.

Besides, generally speaking when somebody is talking about IE or OE,
it's in reference to:

1. IE being required in order to run a program
2. a freeware addon to either
3. a free upgrade from MS.

If that doesn't clarify things enough, please respond.
 
That's incorrect. IE started out as a free-standing freeware from>
Click to expand...
Microsoft designed to compete with and eliminate Netscape (mainly.)
http://www.nwnetworks.com/iehistory.htm
Note the first paragraph under "Full Steam Ahead".
Click to expand...

Keywords ........ "started out"

Yeah, thats about IE 2, and dinosaurs roamed your planet when that was in
reference to (in an evolutionary scale).

Going from "Full Steam Ahead", and from the same site you quote .......
"Microsoft’s strategy for Internet Explorer took an interesting turn in
late 1997 when Microsoft claimed that, once installed, Internet Explorer
3.0 could not be completely uninstalled from Windows 95"

READ ......... Win 95 .... prehistoric, almost.
2. It's not just a select few. Anybody can talk about MS IE, OE, XP
SP2 upgrades without me saying that the post is off topic (again,
I don't "flame" people to start with.) All of those upgrades are
freely available from MS.
Click to expand...

Upgrades ARE freely available, agreed. But they are UPGRADES .. the
original is now a commercial product.

Hey thats fine by me, as long as I know where I stand with you.
Let me be clear in my own mind what you are saying .... Any upgrade to
any commercial application is fine to recommend in this freeware group. ?

If so then I summize that I can recommnend any freely UPGRADEABLE
commercial program in this newsgroup without you or your troopers
'tossing the toys outta the crib'. The fact that you MUST purchase the
original program doesn't matter. ?
 
Doctor said:
Microsoft designed to compete with and eliminate Netscape (mainly.)


Keywords ........ "started out"
Yeah, thats about IE 2, and dinosaurs roamed your planet when that was in
reference to (in an evolutionary scale).
Click to expand...

Still, you said and I quote: "Microsoft has *never* made IE or OE
freeware..." I stand by my statement.
Going from "Full Steam Ahead", and from the same site you quote .......
"Microsoft’s strategy for Internet Explorer took an interesting turn in
late 1997 when Microsoft claimed that, once installed, Internet Explorer
3.0 could not be completely uninstalled from Windows 95"

READ ......... Win 95 .... prehistoric, almost.
Click to expand...

"Almost" being the key word here. It's valid history and it disproves
your statement.
Upgrades ARE freely available, agreed. But they are UPGRADES .. the
original is now a commercial product.
Click to expand...

I agree. You do have a very valid point here. However, part of the
crux of the matter is whether or not anybody was recommending a new
version of IE, OE. Admittedly, discussion regarding SP2 *is* off
topic. Regardless, I tended not to read much of the thread because I
use ME, not XP. And I was considering pointing out that SP2 is an
upgrade to a commercial product, but a person can only stand so much
flaming.
Hey thats fine by me, as long as I know where I stand with you.
Let me be clear in my own mind what you are saying .... Any upgrade to
any commercial application is fine to recommend in this freeware group. ?
Click to expand...

Now that's a false extrapolation and I think you know it. Don't be
facetious.
If so then I summize that I can recommnend any freely UPGRADEABLE
commercial program in this newsgroup without you or your troopers
Click to expand...

"Troopers"? That's unnecessary. Let's try to remain civil.
Look, you should be able to see that if nobody complained when the
group became too off topic, it would degenerate into uselessness.
'tossing the toys outta the crib'. The fact that you MUST purchase the
original program doesn't matter. ?
Click to expand...

It matters very much. However, the bulk of the topic regarding SP2 as
I recall (I didn't pay much attention) was, does it effect the way any
freeware runs? That part of the discussion is very valid in this group.

And once again, I point out the following:

generally speaking when somebody is talking about IE or OE, it's in
reference to:

1. IE being required in order to run a program
2. a freeware addon to either
3. a free upgrade from MS.

You have indeed made a point about number three. Never actually
thought about it much.

But of course, I no longer maintain an F.A.Q. for this group, so John
Fitzsimons might want to address the point.
 
Doctor said:
berlin.de:

Ben, I feel you are being more than a little pendantic here. Windows
OS is an OPERATING SYSTEM, which is purchased from Microsoft (and
included in the price are the programs MS IE/OE).
Click to expand...

I disagree; I think your more pedantic than you accuse me of being.
Those two programs are not included in the price of the OS, but if you
do want to use them you must have a valid MS OS license.
This is, of course, my opinion, which obviously differs from yours.
The intention of the operating system is so that you can OPERATE your
computer and run programs (applications). Once you have purchased the
operating system then you can run any program you like, whether it be
commercial or freeware.
Click to expand...

Ah, but you can't use *any* program you would like to use. You can only
use a program which is made for your OS. There are programs available
for OSs besides Windows which I can't use in Windows. There are MAC
programs which I can't use, though I would like to, because I don't own
a MAC license. Are those programs supposed to be dismissed as freeware?
You seem to be stuck in a thought process that does not distinguish
between an OPERATING SYSTEM and a PROGRAM. Microsaft sells the
operating system with the intention that programs will be written to
use that system. Saying that a freeware program is not freeware
simply because you need to purchase an operating system is illogical.
Click to expand...

All OS retailers sell an OS with an intention for their customers to use
programs written for their particular OS.
When did I say, "that a freeware program is not freeware simply because
you need to purchase an operating system"? Are you replying to my post,
or someone else's?
Microsoft has never made IE or OE freeware, the upgrades are simply
that .... a free upgrade to a commercial program for licenced users.
Similiarly, upgrades to the operating system like the current XP SP2.
Click to expand...

I suppose you can interpret the license however you wish. It looks, to
me, like you're trying to establish some precedent, in acf, for either
agreeing with talking about OS updates or not. To be honest, I don't
care right now. That doesn't mean I won't take exception in the future,
though. :)
My original query of the OP's post still hasn't been answered. And
that was, why are some individuals FLAMED for off topic posts, but a
select few can post about MS IE, OE, XP SP2 upgrades without Corliss
flaming them ??
Click to expand...

So, this whole discussion boils down to your problem with Corliss? How
sad for you, but utterly entertaining for the rest of us.

Congratulations! You win!
 
»Q« said:
Still no comment, but I'll give a meta-comment. <g>

When the questions of "what is freeware," "what is on-topic," "what
is acceptable to recommend," and "what is acceptable as
pricelessware" are conflated, it leads to those giant clusterfsck
threads we have occasionally. They're related but distinct, and
we as a group (me included) have trouble sorting these things out. I
think the discussion Susan kicked off on "wares type acceptability"
was a big step in the right direction.




I'd actually prefer that "legally" modify both "obtain" and "use."

Must be legally obtainable at no cost, monetary or otherwise.
Must be legally usable at no cost, monetary or otherwise, for as
long as you wish.

It's tricky to get the modifiers in the right places in a single
sentence without creating a horrible structure.
Click to expand...

Perhaps:

Freeware: software that you may legally obtain and use at no
cost, monetary or otherwise, for as long as you wish.
(Susan, I did see your note to me last time we went over this, but I
didn't get a chance to really look until too late.)
Click to expand...

I suggest you start a Ware Glossary thread if you think the language
should be changed ASAP. Otherwise a revision can be discussed in the
next annual review of the Ware Glossary.

Susan
 
Perhaps:

Freeware: software that you may legally obtain and use at no
cost, monetary or otherwise, for as long as you wish.
Click to expand...

If "for as long as you wish" modifies "obtain", this rules out freeware
with distribution restrictions. For a lot of freeware, there's no way
to tell how long it will be freely obtainable.
I suggest you start a Ware Glossary thread if you think the language
should be changed ASAP. Otherwise a revision can be discussed in the
next annual review of the Ware Glossary.
Click to expand...

I'm in no hurry to push for any changes to the glossary, just kicking
thoughts around.
 
Back
Top