Maximum PC Licensing RSS Feed

Is Apple Using a Technicality to Avoid 3G License Fees?

Ryan Whitwam — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:10:29 -0600

You may not be aware, but Qualcomm holds a number of patents on modern 3G cellular technology. Any company making a 3G cell phone has to pay patent royalties to Qualcomm. Analyst Sanford Bernstein pointed out in a report this week that Apple appears to be taking advantage of a licensing loophole to avoid paying all those fees for the iPhone. The loophole is estimated to save Apple $290 million in fiscal 2009 alone.

Licensees must pay 5% of the wholesale price of a 3G device to the patent owner. Qualcomm’s website lists over 145 companies that have licensed their 3G technology. The list includes all major makers of 3G handsets. The one notable exception? Apple. One surprise on the list is Foxconn, the Taiwanese manufacturer of the iPhone.

The Bernstein report says that Qualcomm is being paid royalties not on the price Apple charges (average $590), but on the unit price Apple pays Foxconn, a mere $244. So instead of making $23.60 per iPhone, Qualcomm is only seeing $9.70. Apple is able to get away with this because the entire manufacturing process is done externally. Qualcomm seems fine with the arrangement. After all, $9.70 per iPhone is pretty good considering how they fly off the shelves.

Windows 7 OEM EULA Excludes Home Builds not for Resale

Justin Kerr — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:58:12 -0600

Whenever we recommend a build list for new systems, we inevitably turn to Windows OEM editions for the OS. They are bit for bit just as powerful as their retail cousins, but may require a bit of telephone tag with Microsoft when upgrading and you were stuck with nobody to call if you need support. Overall the experience wasn't so bad given the discount, but an important, albeit subtle change in the Windows 7 EULA could permanently alter this recommendation. The specific clause found in prior OEM editions of Windows is as follows:

"OEM system builder software packs are intended for PC and server manufacturers or assemblers ONLY. They are not intended for distribution to end users. Unless the end user is actually assembling his/her own PC, in which case, that end user is considered a system builder as well."

As you can see from the above passage, prior versions clearly made allowance for those that assembled their own system, sadly, this is no longer the case in Windows 7. Assuming this isn't a mistake (and when do lawyers ever make mistakes), then Windows 7 OEM editions can legally only be installed on machines you intend to sell. I suppose you could always pawn off your new machine to a family member for a song, then politely ask them to return it, but Microsoft clearly wants to push more home users over to the retail edition.

You can still buy OEM editions as easily as before from online retailers such as Newegg, but if your moral compass points true north, you'll need to buy retail editions on new systems you aren't selling from now on. Will this stop you from using OEM editions?

(Image Credit: winsupersite.com)

Murphy's Law: Open-Source Licensing Brings Headaches, Confusion

David Murphy — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:45:05 -0500

Open-source licensing can be a tricky beast. But it's not just aspiring software developers that need be concerned about the nuances of OSS licensing (or freeware licensing, for that matter). If you offer up apps on a CD or a Web site for others to grab, you're just as impacted by the parameters of licensing as anyone else. If you're just a downloader who's thinking, "why me? I just install cool programs," it behooves you to understand the differences between legitimate and illegal distribution models for the programs you fancy. While you, yourself, cannot be held accountable for another's licensing violation when you go to download software, you shouldn't encourage their efforts either. Playing by the rules is the only way to keep the spirit of open source alive.

That doesn't make it any less easy for you to understand the rules. And there are certainly number of them. There are licensing restrictions for what you can make available to others. There are restrictions on the kinds of files or code you need to package alongside applications you're distributing (be it on a CD to a friend or on your personal home page). There are restrictions on your ability to modify the software and retain elements of its original trademarks, and there are restrictions on what you can charge to deliver the software to others. There are a lot of restrictions--far more than what I could ever cover in a single column. And they aren't always as clearly defined as one would hope.

The GNU General Public License (GPL), for example, allows you to make whatever modifications to a program you want without additional reservations, provided you keep the changes to yourself. The license most concerns itself with distribution of the software. If you choose to make your modified work available to a friend, a group of fans, or the Internet as a whole, you have to package your derivative work along with the requisite license and source code. But even that's a can of worms in itself.

Is it enough to pack the complete source code along with your program's binaries? Yes. That's actually the preferred method of satisfying your licensing requirements. You can also link to a third-party site that hosts the applicable source-code for you--if you're passing along a binary as part of a software distribution package, for example--but you have to make sure that said site is both easily found via the program and that it is able to host the relevant source code for as long as you're distributing the binary.

As always, the necessity of packaging source code along with a program varies depending on the licensing scheme. OpenOffice.org's LGPL v3 allows you to just link back to main OpenOffice.org site--it's as easy as that. Other licenses like the Berkeley Source Distribution (BSD) have no source code requirement. Unlike the GPL, which prohibits the inclusion of licensed open-source code into closed-source projects, projects based on a BSD license can be passed around, modified, and locked into programs without requiring the source code to be released in any fashion. Mozilla's MPL license requires that modifications of its applicable code-as opposed to new files you've created using your own code--be documented and the source code for the work be made available to the public for no less than 12 months.

Without getting into too much detail (for fear of writng a book instead of a column), this is a great example of the gap between strong and weak copyleft provisions. In a nutshell, copyleft--an obvious play on the word "copyright"--signifies a license's ability to force derivative works to use the same license when released. The GPL would be the strong copyleft example, whereas the free-ranging, do-whatever-you-want BSD license would fall in the latter category.

Of course, even if you were to follow all the parameters of whatever license it is that you're bound by as a developer or user, you could still run afoul of a company's legal rights by passing along a modified binary of the program without approval. Mozilla's Firefox browser represents the perfect scenario here. Suppose you found an awesome extension that you wanted to pack into a version of Firefox that you later decided to release on the Web or give to your friends. Technically, you would not be allowed to call the release Mozilla Firefox without approval, nor could you use the company's logos in the software itself.

Think about it. Any variation you make to Firefox--be it one as large as changing the default bookmarks to one as small as repackaging the installation file into a new archive--would be seen as an implicit endorsement by the company were you to use its Mozilla or Firefox trademarks in reference to the project. Were you to rename your creation AwesomeBrowser and strip the accompanying logos from the program, you'd be in the clear (assuming you fulfilled the other terms of the MPL).

Confusing? You betcha. But integrity in the open-source and freeware world leads to software development and community involvement in a manner that's consistent and fair for all involved. Without standards, the very nature of open-source would fold into one giant mush of "it's free, do whatever." And that's not what anybody wants, nor would its presumed benefits trickle down to you, the user, in a positive fashion. By helping developers enforce the rules of their software, you do your part in making sure that everyone, regardless of background, has the same ability to create and improve as anybody else. That's a good thing.

As for how you can best stay afloat in these multi-license waters, well. Read the licenses. Understand the licenses. Ask questions, search for FAQs, troll message boards. As the oft-repeated phrase goes, know your rights. And more importantly, know if you're accidentally violating someone else's.

David Murphy (@ Acererak) is a technology journalist and former Maximum PC editor. He writes weekly columns about the wide world of open-source and roundups of awesome, freebie software. Shoot him a message via Twitter, especially if you have an awesome app or game you're dying to recommend!

[image credit: http://www.gnu.org/software/software.html]

FSF to Cisco: It's Time to get Sued!

David Murphy — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:30:21 -0600

The Free Software Foundation filed suit in U.S. District Court today, alleging that networking giant Cisco violated FSF copyrights by not giving its users the ability to share and modify the open-source software it uses as the basis for some of its hardware. That's a mouthful, so here's what happened: According FSF, the company found that Cisco was using a GNU-licensed version of Linux to power its firmware. Only, Cisco wasn't giving its customers the full access to the source code that the GNU license specifies as a condition of use!

According to the FSF, the company has been working with Cisco in an attempt to repair these licensing issues since 2003, when the FSF first noticed that Cisco's WRT54G router was running Linux source code, yet offering purchasers no way to access that source code as stipulated in the accompanying GNU license. Cisco allegedly took the ball and ran with it, levying the same treatment for a wide swath of its networking products and accompanying software. That's how things got messy, and why the FSF decided to pursue legal action to protect its copyrights.

"Our licenses are designed to ensure that everyone who uses the software can change it," said Richard Stallman, president and founder of the FSF. "In order to exercise that right, people need the source code, and that's why our licenses require distributors to provide it. We are enforcing our licenses to protect the rights that everyone should have with all software: to use it, share it, and modify it as they see fit."

The complaint, which you can read for yourself, asks the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to enjoin Cisco from distributing the infringing products. FSF also seeks monetary rewards -- all the profits Cisco has made from said devices. That's an open-source nuke, if we've ever heard one! Cisco has yet to respond to the suit as of this article's writing. But if this case goes in the FSF's favor, the idea is that Cisco would have to release all of the code that it's mixed alongside the GNU-bound Linux code. At least, if Cisco intends to keep using code that falls under a GNU license, that's the way it has to work.

Legit and Illegitimate Streaming Music

Erin Simon — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:36:40 -0600

Two announcements Wednesday highlight the disconnect between copyright law and the market for copyrighted music. First, and unsuprisingly, music search site Seeqpod got sued for direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringement by Warner Music Group. The site allows visitors to search the internet for music and play it in a flash player embedded in the page of search results. Seeqpod doesn't host any infringing files itself, but it does create the impression that it is making those files available by direct-linking to them within its own interface.

Meanwhile, similar music website Last.fm began offering free streaming of most of the tracks in its catalogue. EMI, Sony, Universal, Warner, and thousands of indie labels and artists all authorized the move, which will give them a cut of Last.fm's ad revenue for every play. Each track will only be free for 3 listens a user, and then you'll get a message promoting the site's subscription service. The site had previously offered 30-second samples of some songs and free mp3s of some others.

Both sites are giving users easy and free access to songs on demand. One is technically not violating the copyright owner's exclusive reproduction or distribution right, by not hosting content itself (though the contributory and vicarious claims are stronger), but probably doesn't have the money to fight a lawsuit and will fold. The other got major content owners to support its venture by offering them a slice. In the end, users get unquestionably lawful on-demand music streaming. Law isn't always the answer – in Last.fm, rather than relying on expensive and risky litigation, the parties bargained to reach a solution that's good for everyone.

Vista Activation Strikes Again - Time to Fight Back

Mark Soper — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:45:31 -0500

Vista Hardware Activation Fears Realized - Big Time

People have been concerned about how Windows Vista would cope with new hardware for a long time now. Our own Will Smith wrote about it a year ago. Although Microsoft quickly adjusted its licensing terms before releasing Windows Vista in its final form to help assuage concerns from hardware experimenters (that's us, folks!) worried about being locked out of our Windows Vista installations - it's happening anyway.

Device Driver Changes Look Like Hardware Changes to Vista

Tuesday, Vista user James Bannan, writing for Australia's APCmag.com website, confirmed any hardware maven's worst fears: not only would Microsoft Vista deactivate after giving only three days notice, but device driver changes could trigger deactivation!

Before you suspect Bannan of going on an update spree that left nothing but the chassis, consider this: the last hardware change he'd made was swapping his DirectX 9 graphics card for a DX10 card. So, what triggered the three days to RFM mode (which leaves you with a web browser that works for a half-hour)? A driver change!

Although Windows Vista believed that Bannan had changed his disk controller, which, when added to the graphics card change, was significant enough in Microsoft's mind to trigger deactivation, he hadn't. He'd updated the Intel Matrix Storage Manager program, which is used on Intel motherboards that feature RAID-compatible I/O controller hub (South Bridge) chips. Essentially, the driver change was mistaken for a hardware change.

A Happy Ending - But Only for Some

Bannan was able to reactivate his copy of Vista, but had to use the telephone to do it. Of the over 90 replies to this story, others had much unhappier outcomes:

- a deaf user had to ask a friend to come over and make the telephone call to reactivate Vista
- another user performed a BIOS upgrade after upgrading the video card, and hasn't been able to reactivate Vista
- other users complained of being forced to reactivate Vista after changing SATA settings in the BIOS, connecting a couple of different USB drives to the system, or working with third-party full-volume encryption programs!

To learn how to avoid these problems, keep reading.

Vista Activation is Broken - So How Can You Avoid Breaking Your Copy of Vista?

Clearly, Microsoft's Vista Activation feature is broken. That's all there is to it. Being unable to distinguish driver updates, BIOS updates, or BIOS setting changes from hardware updates is absolutely unacceptable. It's one of the biggest barriers to Windows Vista acceptance - and it doesn't even work to stop piracy. There are plenty of sources for pirated Vista copies, and some users, fearful of being locked out of their systems, have even purchased legal copies but installed pirated versions that don't have activation issues.

Here are some better ideas that won't get you in trouble at home or at the office:

1. If you're installing Vista on an existing system, do your upgrades first. Upgrade the BIOS (only if you need to), the video card, the RAM, etc. - then upgrade to Windows Vista. Use the Microsoft Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor to find out if you need driver updates or hardware updates to run your preferred flavor of Windows Vista, and download those drivers before you install Windows Vista. You can run the Vista upgrade advisor from the Windows Vista DVD or download it from the Microsoft website.

2. Don't get in a hurry to activate Windows Vista after installation, especially if you still have upgrades to perform. You have 30 days after installation before you need to activate it. Use that time wisely to make sure you have: installed the best drivers for your hardware - configured your system BIOS in the most suitable manner - performed a BIOS upgrade - if it's really needed. Remember, once you activate Windows Vista, you've 'locked in' your system configuration. And, if you change it enough, you might need to reactivate it.

3. When you see the reactivation notification, don't mess around: do it now! It's easy to blow off a "3 days to reactivate" message, but if you keep doing it, you'll eventually wind up with nothing but a web browser (the so-called RFM 'reduced functionality mode') until you contact Microsoft to reactivate. If you take action during the countdown period, you can usually use the Internet to reactivate, but if you wait until the reminder period ends, you're stuck using the telephone.

4. If you like to experiment with different operating systems, use a different hard disk for each one instead of nuking your only drive and reactivating Vista each time you install it. You can grab 250GB or larger desktop ATA or SATA hard disks for less than $80 each, and if you leave the side of your case off (or use a case with a quick-change drive cage), it's easy to swap drives in and out.

5. As an alternative to reinstallation if you have only one hard disk, create a disk image after you activate Windows Vista. Restore the image when you need to, using a program like Norton Ghost, Acronis TrueImage, and so forth. You can store the image to an external USB hard disk or a hidden ("secure") hard disk partition (as discussed in this Microsoft forum thread).

6. Decide which way you prefer to get driver updates: via Windows Update or from the vendor - and stick with it. James Bannan suggests that replacing a driver updated through Windows Update with a vendor-supplied driver might increase the chances of triggering the need to reactivate Windows. If you prefer vendor-supplied drivers because they often provide more features, make sure you configure Windows Update to check for updates, rather than installing them automatically. When Windows Update lists a driver update, note the driver being offered, hide the update, and go to the vendor's website instead for the drivers you need.

7. Complain to Microsoft every time you have a problem with reactivation. The Microsoft Windows Vista Validation Issues forum is a good place to start. Remind Microsoft that you paid good money for Vista and you don't like this kind of treatment.

Users to Microsoft: "We're Not Criminals!"

Microsoft needs to stop treating users who have paid hundreds of dollars for Windows Vista upgrades - and hundreds or thousands of dollars for new computers with Vista - like criminals. Right now Windows Vista activation is punishing legitimate computer users who like to experiment and upgrade their systems while doing nothing to stop piracy.

Microsoft needs to understand that it could sell a lot more copies of Windows Vista if it didn't jerk users around like this. Let's hope - and work hard to help - Redmond get the message.

Flickr User Sues Creative Commons Over License

Erin Simon — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:06:18 -0500

A church youth group leader takes a photo of a teenager and posts it to Flickr. He licenses the photo with a Creative Commons Attribution license, which allows anyone to copy or modify the photo as long as they credit him as the photographer. Virgin Mobile Australia does just that: crops the photo, adds a bit of snarky text, and uses it as part of an ad campaign – without contacting the photographer or the subject to secure any other rights. What do you think happens next? Yup, the photographer, the teenager, and the parents all sue Virgin Mobile... and Creative Commons!

Virgin Mobile is an easy case. Through the license the photographer waived his copyright interest in the photo, but that license didn't extend to other legal issues, namely the subject's rights of privacy and publicity. To commercially use a recognizable image of a person (using their photo in an ad, for example, making it look like they endorse your product), you need their permission. And the fact that the subject of the photo is underage adds another hurdle. Since Virgin didn't obtain a model release from the girl or her parents, they are pretty clearly liable.

But what could Creative Commons have done to merit a lawsuit? According to the photographer, he didn't realize that by licensing his photos Attribution Only, he was agreeing to commercial uses like advertising. He alleges that Creative Commons has a duty to inform him, a nonlawyer, of the legal consequences of adopting their standard form license.

It's not clear that they do have such a duty – there's no US law on the issue because it's never, to my knowledge, come up before. Creative Commons wasn't offering legal advice, but they were explicitly targeting non-legally-sophisticated users (i.e., separating their licenses into Human Readable and Legalese) and urging them to use CC's form licenses. There is an argument to be made, but I doubt it'll succeed. The duty to explain that “commercial” means commercial is a bit much, and no licensor could ever explain all the things its license doesn't do. Nice try, though.

Microsoft's Licensing Madness

Will Smith — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:50:06 -0500

The controversy du jour regards a particularly abhorrent clause that Ed Bott noticed in Microsoft’s end-user license agreement for Vista. Most software EULAs are documents filled with nasty lists of things that you can’t do with the software you purchased, but the clause Microsoft snuck in unannounced is especially evil. It’s titled “Reassign to another device.”

Here’s the exact text: “The first user of the software may reassign the license to another device one time.” That means that if you purchase a copy of Vista at retail—be it the $200 Home Basic or the $400 Vista Ultimate package—you have the right to install that OS on one machine. When you retire that machine, you can install the OS on a second PC, but that’s it. Unlike the Windows XP EULA, which permits you to continue transferring the OS indefinitely (as long as you remove it from the previous machine), Vista’s EULA restricts each copy of the OS to two computers.

Naturally, the new policy will be enforced using Product Activation. Upgrade too much hardware, too many times and Microsoft will disable your legally purchased version of Windows Vista. Frighteningly, none of the Microsoft representatives I’ve spoken with can specify what determines the difference between a hardware upgrade and a new machine; all they’ll say is that it’s a complicated algorithm.

This makes Vista very, very unattractive for anyone who builds his or her own rigs. Vista will force people who frequently build new machines or do regular major upgrades—like you and me—to pay Microsoft a couple hundred bucks a year for the privilege of running Vista. I’ve had a few problems with the new OS, but I’m ready to drop WinXP. But it will be a cold day in hell before I pay multiple times for the same piece of software for the same PC. That’s highway robbery.

Why is Microsoft doing this? Because it can. There will be relatively few people affected by this license change, as the vast majority of Vista builds will end up in OEM machines purchased by people who don’t upgrade. Indeed, even if everyone who’s affected by this clause decides to boycott Vista, it won’t make a measureable impact on sales.

I’ve never been more conflicted about a product before. If the EULA remains as-is, I’ll be unable to recommend Vista to the Maximum PC elite. The hitch is DirectX 10, which only works with Vista. I just saw the first batch of games written for DirectX 10, and they make “next-gen” console titles look like bantha fodder. Every hardcore gamer will be forced to make a Hobson’s choice.

I've sent a letter saying the same thing to the higher-ups at Microsoft, but I don't really expect to hear anything good. I'd be really interested to hear what you guys think about this mess, so feel free to join the discussion in our forums.

This is a dark day for PC enthusiasts.