Comment by wongarsu
1 year ago
Which for the record they absolutely need, for example if you write something in word, click the share button, copy the link and publish it in this forum. Microsoft is now publishing whatever you wrote in the document, and their lawyers want to make sure they are allowed to do that.
Word versions that predate the share button probably wouldn't need the license grant. But since MS likes to limit the number of different licenses it was probably still in there to cover SharePoint and OneDrive
The software license terms for Word and all the other desktop apps does not include such a clause, no. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/useterms
The Microsoft Services Agreement applies to your use of their online services, like OneDrive and SharePoint, as you say, and there's an explicit consent in the app and a giant off switch there. They employ dark patterns to push you strongly to use their online services, but it's still optional.
It should be readily obvious that choosing to use online sharing or storage features or submit reviews require the data you enter to be sent, shared, or stored thusly...
In that case I stand corrected. Apparently you could use Word without accepting an agreement potentially granting Microsoft a license to what you write.
No offense, I'm aware of how complex laws can be, but... Shouldn't that be obvious? Or do you think you also grant a license to any pen manufacturer to help you write whatever it is that you are writing?
Word isnt a desktop app anymore. Its a service that is also made available via a desktop app. You cant just ignore 365 like that
> Which for the record they absolutely need
"Hey, here are my car keys - can you move my car to a different parking space?"
"I cannot - I do not have a royalty-free non-exclusive worldwide perpetual license to access and operate your vehicle."
I realize lawyers have been wildly successful in making a parody of our societies and legal systems, but permission is implied in clicking the "share" button, it does not require obtuse and overreaching legal language to grant.
So to take your example:
So based on this request: "Hey, here are my car keys - can you move my car to a different parking space?" The parking attendant's gonna drive it like they do in Ferris Bueller's Day Off[1]. Oh - you didn't want that? Well you should have been more specific.
If you are comfortable leaving things ambiguous, that's fine. That's how you get situations where Twitter and Meta are using all of their user content as input for LLMs. Obviously you can stop using those products if you want, but when you get angry about (or mock) companies that are making it illegal for them to do the same thing you are part of the problem.
I don't "like" legal jargon, but I understand that the legal system is one way we can limit the power of corporations, and throwing up your hands and claiming we don't need it feels immature to me. We live in hell but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve hell. We certainly shouldn't lie & distort what rights Mozilla has under this agreement as the title of this submission does.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0_rKOlzVuY
> Oh - you didn't want that? Well you should have been more specific.
But that license agreement does the opposite - it gives Microsoft more general permissions. You tell them to host & share your content by clicking "share", but then they also give themselves all sorts of other permissions.
4 replies →