For the uninitiated,
FSF = Free Software Foundation
CC = Creative Commons
That out of the way, let’s get to the point: The Free Software Foundation’s latest ridiculous hit piece on Microsoft (after the break) not only uses a license considered a “cardinal sin” (as stated by Matt Asay) amongst free open source software proponents, they actually render their own licensing null and void by blanketing IP which they don’t actually own. Let’s take a look.
The important part, circled in mspaint-esque red, can be found at the bottom of the campaign’s page. Basically, their Creative Commons license requires attribution, denies derivative works (the “cardinal sin”), and, quite ironically, puts no limits on commercial reproduction. I’ve saved a copy of the page to commercially reprint for the sake of covering my PDC bills since they apparently don’t care, but that’s beside the point. The point is that they applied a Creative Commons license to the entire page, which of course spans all of the elements used within the page. This also spans the header image, which violates Microsoft’s trademark by reproducing the new Windows logo with the primary four colors intact, thereby qualifying as a gross breach of Microsoft’s trademark. Because the FSF did not receive permission to use the Windows logo and because they did not exempt the trademark from the license, they’re now left with a license which covers items in violation… which renders the Creative Commons license spanning their entire page (and every other page mentioning that license with that header) null and void. This, of course, also means that my derivative works are perfectly allowed. Score one for defense.
To summarize, not only did the Free Software Foundation violate their own principals, they hypocritically denied the right to create derivative works from the campaign page while creating a derivative work from Microsoft’s logo which is close enough to the original as to give grounds to Microsoft for a lawsuit. In addition, it begs the question of whether the funds they happen to have are truly being used to better the open source cause or if they’re just burning money in a campaign of FUD.
Microsoft, of course, likely won’t sue because giving the Free Software Foundation their own Streisand Effect would be a nightmare scenario.
All of the above is from my primitive understanding of IP law and licenses. I am not a lawyer, but I would love to be corrected by someone who is and hasn’t chosen a side in this mess.
Once upon a time, a Microsoft employee said that UAC was designed to annoy people, thus encouraging people (and systems administrators) to bug application developers and get those developers to fix their use of resources in Windows. Well, it seems that one company actually went backwards, making its application more annoying than it used to be.
My thanks goes to Ed Bott, legendary Microsoft columnist and author, for 
Lots of people are asking for the logic behind Apple’s apparent move into the tablet market. Matthew Miller of ZDNet posted this 
Follow Bryant on Twitter! 
