Microsoft Backs Down on Vista Licensing

First, Microsoft proposed a new one-time transfer restriction for the Vista Retail Licence, reported by, among others, Ed Bott on ZDNet. Then they tried to put a spin on the proposal by dressing it up as a "clarification" of a long-standing intention not clearly expressed in the XP Retail Licence which Paul Thurrott reported and seemed to accept (which Ed Bott clearly did not and nor did I). Now they are withdrawing this particular proposal altogether.

I suppose one has to be grateful for these small mercies, but really, did anyone in Microsoft seriously think that they could get away with it? A vote of thanks to people in the field who weren't going to take it lying down.

Funny Photographer

The more recent iMacs, MacBooks & MacBook Pros all come with a built-in iSight webcam. They also come with a program called PhotoBooth which takes snapshots with iSight with different effects, and many people find this one of the coolest things on the new Macs.

I have an older iMac, and had to buy my own iSight camera. Unfortunately, it didn't come with any image capture software. PhotoBooth is shareware. I was getting rather envious of the new Mac owners, started searching for a free program that would do a similar job, and found one. It's called Funny Photographer. It captures snapshots for you using iSight, and it comes with different effects.



Turn on your iSight, open Funny Photographer, and you'll see the image on the program window. Select an effect from the drop-down list, and you get a preview of the image. If you're happy with what you see, just click the "camera" button, and the image will be captured for you. You can also opt for a lag of 3 seconds between the click of the camera button and the taking of the snapshot. After the capture, a thumbnail of the picture appears at the bottom of the window. You can save it, delete it, or if you prefer, just leave it there for the time being.

Of course you can take just a "normal shot", which is called the "simple effect". Some of these effects - as with a lot of them - are there just for the sake of it, but Funny Photographer does have a few which are pretty cool. My favourites are Cube, Reflection and Replicate. With the latter two, you can even drag the preview image around and create a different perspective or effect.
































Try it out for yourself. Download it from Fabian Spillner's blog, the program creator's site, or at the Apple Download Centre. It may not blow away PhotoBooth, but hey, for owners of the older Macs, it's still a very handy tool.

The End of TWiT or the End of the Internet?

Until yesterday, the end of the internet was just a joke to many people. Now it seems it may become a reality.

No TWiT this week. Leo Laporte couldn't get the crew together. No show next week either 'coz Leo will be on a geek cruise. What's more, in his blog on his TWiT.tv site, he says:

"I'll decide what happens to TWiT, the show, when I come back, but at this point it looks like it's on life support and the heart monitor is flatlining."

That sounds really ominous. TWiT is one of most popular podcasts around, and one of the best. To many Screen Savers fans, it's also a part-resurrection of the old show. If the show ends, it's a big blow to many fans. Just look at the comments on Leo's blog, and Digg.

To some of those comments, Leo replied:

"At this point I have a couple of choices. I could re-cast the show with people who will actually show up, but is it a TWiT without Patrick and John?"

TWiT History
The idea of running the show came as the result of a reunion of the former TechTV personalities. For a brief background of how TWiT came about, read the TWiT.tv story. You can also download the "pilot" episode: The Revenge of the Screen Savers - the precursor to TWiT. I don't know what discussions there were about the show, where it should be going and what might happen to it, who came up with the great idea of the name TWiT (this Week in Tech) - and whether anyone owns the name.

To an outsider like me certainly, it's Leo who took the lead in creating the show. He then added other shows, and at the time of writing, there are 13 podcasts. For a long time, the whole operation was done on a pro bono basis, with support from donations. As far as I can gather, Leo has been slow to accept advertising. Astaro on Security Now was one of the exceptions. Then in September, TWiT became officially a podcast "network", which Leo had been talking about for a while. The website got a new look, with on-site advertising, and almost network-wide advertising by Dell (and by Visa for the trial period of September).

Earlier this month, Leo got the award of Podcaster of the Year. The website looks good. More podcasts are coming. All of a sudden it looks very rosy.

Not everyone was pleased with the changes. Some people started complaining about the ads, and threatened terminating their donations. Some were receptive to the idea of ads, but didn't like the way Leo was slipstreaming the ads into the shows, fearing editorial contamination. On the whole, though, people understood that they could not expect all those podcasts (with the generally high quality that comes with the shows) to continue on a pro bono basis. Personally, I welcome the advertising, and it's been tastefully done. I much prefer this "slipstreaming" to the commercial breaks you get on CrankyGeeks and dl.tv, but that's a matter of personal preference.

Then the servers came down last weekend. It meant a lot of work for Leo. The weekend period is already a packed schedule for Leo at the best of times. He has to host his KFI Tech Guy on the radio on Saturday and Sunday, put on Security Now and Windows Weekly, get the crew together for TWiT on Sunday afternoon, record it and put it on. Add a couple of servers which chose to go down just before the weekend and it must have been a real nightmare for Leo.

And now he couldn't get the crew together for TWiT.

Can TWiT do without John and Patrick?
Everyone has his own favourite and non-favourite panellists on the TWiT show. Some have pointed out that they don't like John or Patrick anyway, and in any event, if they're not willing to come on the show, so be it, let's move on and get other panellists.

Of course the show can do without them. But would it be the same? Personally, I think what's so special about TWiT is the particular mix of personalities and the chemistry they generate. Neither John's nor Patrick's own show has the same magic (John's CrankyGeeks is probably a closer format to TWiT than dl.tv). But the same can be said of Leo's own shows, good as some of them are. None of Leo's other better shows, such as Security Now, MacBreak Weekly and Windows Weekly (yes, I admit, the format is different), create the sort of fireworks you get on TWiT. Leo is an excellent host, interviewer, moderator and navigator (you can hear the big difference e.g. on MacBreak Weekly when it's not hosted by Leo), but we need the right people to throw the punches when it comes to the crunch. Witness last week's Windows Weekly Episode 3: Vista's Enthusiastic License Agreement, in which Leo and Paul Thurrott made some polite criticisms on Microsoft's new Vista EULA, but no one was there to really tear into Microsoft the way it deserved.

You need a Cory Doctorow to trash DRM as a scourge on the face of the earth; you need a John C Dvorak to say categorically that the YouTube sale to Google is a completely dud piece of rumour which is NEVER going to happen (and get proven wrong, all the better for it). All right, Patrick doesn't necessarily fit into this category, but hey, I like the chemistry.

Go easy on John and Patrick
People have pointed out that they wouldn't have started watching CrankyGeeks or dl.tv or even known about them if not for listening to TWiT. TWiT draws in the audience for them. It's their loss. Yes, but in the same way, TWiT also draws in the audience for the network's other shows. So in an indirect way, the TWiT show's regular panellists have also contributed to the success of the TWiT network, the credit for which is attributed, naturally, mostly to Leo. Quite rightly, too, as he has done most of the work. It's not anyone's fault, but that's just the way things are. But for those of us who like the show in its present format, it doesn't help if we start saying that we can dispense with John and Patrick.

None of us know why it's getting more difficult to get John and Patrick on the show. Leo hasn't explained it. He hasn't even said whether he knows what the reasons are. Before I know what those reasons are, I'm not going to blame John or Patrick for being reluctant to appear on the show. I honestly don't think that John and Patrick are reluctant to appear just because TWiT has become a network the running of which is out of their hands or that they're not getting any, or enough, remuneration for their effort. But with some people responding to Leo's blog by saying the show can easily do without John or Patrick, it's just going to strengthen the perception that TWiT has become the Leo show, and there will be even less incentive for John and Patrick to make the effort.

And it is a lot to ask people to appear on the show on a Sunday afternoon on a weekly basis. Most of them have a full-time job. They need to spend time with their families or do whatever they need to do outside their working hours. It may be just an hour or so each week, but that one hour may mean getting in the way of, say, a family outing for the entire day or afternoon.

Leo's Frustration
I can readily understand Leo's difficulties and frustration, especially after last weekend's server saga. He needs to know who's appearing for next week's TWiT, and if necessary, get other guests on board. All I can say is TWiT wouldn't be the same without John and Patrick, and the TWiT network wouldn't be the same without TWiT. I still hope that they can make it to the show on a basis which makes Leo's task of scheduling guests feasible.

The end of TWiT? I hope it doesn't come to that.

PS: Good news. Leo has announced that TWiT will be back. The TWiTs are going to keep the show going and will work out a system to prevent burn-out.

Disney and Piracy

At a recent analyst call, Anne Sweeney of the Disney/ABC Television Group made the rather illuminating statement that they now regarded piracy as a competing business model that existed to serve a need in the marketplace, and that to compete with this model, media companies had to come up with a strategy to provide attractive, easy ways for consumers to get the content they wanted legally, by keeping honest people honest.

See the ars technica report.

Finally a statement that makes sense from a big media company. But how about rephrasing that statement as --- cheaper prices?

Of course ABC was one of the first to put their TV shows on the iTunes Music Store, and earlier this year started a trial of airing their shows online. I hope the rest of the media companies would finally wake up and embrace distribution online, at fair prices, instead of continuing to bury their heads in the sand and worry about piracy once their contents are made available in digital form - and with terrible DRM management.

Interestingly, Apple's Steve Jobs happens to be the biggest shareholder of Disney. At a recent interview with Newsweek, Jobs was asked about the attempt by the record companies to raise prices on the then iTunes Music Store (after resisting the idea in the first place). Jobs said that the initial strategy of the iTMS was that the way to stop piracy was to compete with it by offering a better product at a fair price. Apple made an implicit deal with the consumers and if they were to raise prices, they would be violating that deal.

Pretty close to what Anne Sweeney was saying, eh?

New Vista licensing terms ...

Ed Bott posted an article on ZDNet last week about certain changes in the new proposed Vista licensing terms (Ed Bott's blog).

One of the changes is to do with the transfer of Vista to another machine. In the new retail licence for Vista - note we are talking about the RETAIL EULA, not the OEM EULA - the right to use the Windows OS has been changed. You may only transfer your retail version of Vista to another machine only once.

It has always been the case that when you buy a copy of Windows, you're only getting a licence to use it, on certain terms. Those terms are set out in the EULA (End User Licensing Agreement). There are different licences, such as the retail version, the OEM version, and for corporate users, volume licensing. For the home user, the versions we encounter most is either the retail version or the OEM version.

The OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) version of Windows usually comes pre-installed with a computer. If you buy a computer from Dell, HP, Gateway etc, it comes pre-installed with an "OEM version" of Windows. With the OEM version, the contract is made between the end user and the OEM. The Windows software is licensed to you together with the computer as a single integrated product. I can't find a copy of the OEM EULA online, but it's what you will see when you boot up the computer with your XP CD and select to enter Setup mode. The software plus the hardware is licensed to you as a single product and the software may only be used with that particular computer.

With the Retail version of Windows, you can transfer the Windows software to another computer. The only restriction is you may only run ONE copy of the software at any one time. So as long as you uninstall it from the previous computer, that's fine, and you can install Windows on a 3rd machine, as long as you remove it from the 2nd too. Fair enough, that makes sense. You may also sell the software to another person, as long as you remove your copy of Windows from your computer, and that person may on-sell it to someone else, as long as he does the same thing. That's my understanding of the Retail EULA, and I believe that of many other computer users. But read on for the now contrary views from Microsoft.



"... virtually everything you've read online ... is wrong"?

Following Ed Bott's blog, Paul Thurrott wrote an article on his WinSuperSite entitled Licensing Changes to Windows Vista and said "I'm here to tell you that virtually everything you've read online about the changes to Windows Vista's end-user license agreement (EULA) is wrong." I should add that his article is not targeted at any one particular report but is simply an attempt to clarify what he perceives to be a general misunderstanding.

I needn't say that Paul is a highly respected commentator in the field and he's not one to mince words when it comes to Microsoft, and no one doubts his objectivity. For my 2 cents' worth, I have to disagree with him.

Infinite Transfers: A Myth?

Paul in his article refers to the idea that you can transfer a single copy of XP to as many machines as you like (as long as you remove it from previous machines) as a "myth". To summarise Paul, this myth is the result of the argument by pundits in the field to the effect that since the retail EULA allows transfer of the XP software to another machine, it means you can do so with as many machines as you like, since the EULA does not impose any restrictions on the number of times of such transfer.

Paul then says, well, it turns out that the licence is tied to a single device. I was pretty surprised to read that myself. The idea that the Windows software is tied to a single PC is nothing new in relation to an OEM licence, but in relation to a retail version of XP, it is complete news to me.

Microsoft's "Intention"

In support of his contention, Paul does not cite any argument or reasoning of his own, but defers to Shanen Boettcher, general manager of Microsoft. "As it turns out," Paul writes, "infinite transfers wasn't the intention." We are told that Microsoft's supposed intention, as now enunciated by Boettcher, was to cover "very specific circumstances", namely, in the case of a hardware failure. So Boettcher is now saying that with your XP retail licence, you may only transfer XP to another machine if the original one has failed.

What is slightly disappointing about Paul's article is, never once in the article has he ever expressed his own understanding, if any, of the XP Retail EULA, prior to speaking to Boettcher, nor his views as to the consequences of such a contention by Microsoft of existing holders of the XP retail licence. Yet he rather hastily dismisses the reports of the Vista licensing changes as wrong.

My Two Cents

IMHO, the reports have been correct. The Vista Retail licensing terms have changed.

The XP Retail EULA is a binding legal contract between Microsoft and the end-user. Their respective rights and obligations are defined by the EULA. If there is a dispute about those rights, you look at the contract to see what the parties' common intention was, as expressed in the written document. You don't ask the parties (let alone just one party) what their original intentions were. Quoting Boettcher as the source of support for a particular view is as wrong as asking John Doe the gamer enthusiast who has an XP retail licence whether he thinks he has the right to infinite transfers.

Clause 4 of the XP Retail EULA says that you may transfer the Product to a different Workstation Computer. It doesn't say you may have infinite tranfers, but nor does it say you may transfer only if the old machine has failed. Is it ambiguous? I don't think it is. The singular expression includes the plural, unless a contrary intention appears. There is no contrary intention anywhere in the EULA. Nor is there any compelling reason for implying into the contract a term in accordance with Boettcher's now expressed "intention". I've bought a licence to use XP. I have used it on one computer. Now I want to ditch the old one, and build a brand new machine and install XP on it. What's wrong with that? Nothing. More pertinently, what's so obvious about Microsoft's intended restriction that we have to imply it into the contract which is otherwise silent on the point?

If one reads on in clause 4, it restricts the transfer of the software to a third-party very specifically to a one-time transfer. The absence of any simliar or other restrictions to "internal" transfer (i.e. by the same user to another machine) in the same clause speaks volumes in support of the interpretation that you can transfer to another machine for as many times as you like.

Microsoft has always known of this practice of transfer; has never disputed it as being in breach of the retail EULA; and has never chosen to make any changes to the relevant term in various forms of the retail EULA in progressive versions of Windows. Objectively speaking, there is only one conclusion to be drawn. They fully understood that clause 4 allows infinite transfers whether or not the existing machine has failed and intended it to be so understood, and has acted in accordance with that understanding over the years.

If Microsoft wants to introduce the new restriction into the new EULA, probably because of piracy concerns, fine, do it, and justify the change. But for Microsoft to say now, 4 years after XP was launced (and many more years after the launch of other Windows platforms with similar retail EULAs), that their intention has always been to allow a transfer to a new machine only when the old one has failed is disingenuous.

True, the proposed new restriction for Vista probably affects a small percentage of users, the PC enthusiasts who regularly upgrade their computer hardware. Don't forget, however, that Microsoft has a huge market and even 5% of that market is huge number. As Karoush Ghazi writes on Paul's site (invited by Paul to do so), why should these enthusiasts be ignored, and how does Microsoft justify the conventionally huge price difference between an OEM version and a retail version of Windows?

That was at least the one question I would expect someone of Paul Thurrott's calibre to have asked. Uncharacteristically, he failed to tackle Microsoft on it.

Floss Weekly

After an absence for about a month, the podcast FLOSS Weekly has come back, with a vengeance. FLOSS (Free Libre Open-Source Software) is a podcast dedicated to the open source community, hosted by Chris diBona and Leo Laporte on the podcast network TWiT.tv.

In this episode, which came out last week, Chris and Leo interview Eben Moglen, General Counsel of the Free Software Foundation, who is acting as mediator in the drafting of version 3 of the General Public Licence - the licence (currently at version 2) which seeks to ensure the proper sharing and perpetuation of free and open source software. It's a real joy to listen to Eben Moglen, whose insight and perspicacity is invaluable. The best podcast I've heard for a very long time.

You can download it from twit.tv

searchmash

Google has created a new search site called searchmash. It combines web search with image search, places the web search results on the left, and the top 3 image search results on the right. A drop-down menu at the top allows you to toggle between the two searches.

What's kinda cool is you can re-arrange the order of the web search results. Just drag a number on the left and re-0rder the results. Also, clicking on the green shortcut for each result gives you a list of options, such as opening the same window, a new window, a cached copy and so on. Not sure where Google's heading but the name suggests some kind of "mashup" in future.



Check it out at Searchmash.