Slashdot Mirror

meh, that silly "weapons" clause has been floating around EULA's forever in one form or another.

From Windows 2000 Professional for example:

http://proprietary.clendons.co.nz/licenses/eula/windows2000professional-eula.htm ...You specifically agree not to export or re-export the SOFTWARE PRODUCT (or portions thereof) [...] (ii) to any person or entity who you know or have reason to know will utilize the SOFTWARE PRODUCT (or portions thereof) in the design, development or production of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons;...

Its appearance in iTunes is likely just some copy-pasta.

Does the phrase "This license can at any time be changed (or revoked by the issuer in any manner deemed fit" ring a bell?

Because I have to say, as a former purchaser of software and hardware computer products, it sounds pretty damned familiar to me.

Nope, it does not ring any bell, and I am one of those obsessive types and actually read the software licenses to anything I use. Here are some Microsoft EULAs and I cannot find such a clause in any of them. All the termination clauses in them are only applicable if you break the EULA. For example, the WinXP license says: "6. TERMINATION. Without prejudice to any other rights, Microsoft may cancel this EULA if you do not abide by the terms and conditions of this EULA, in which case you must destroy all copies of the Product and all of its component parts." If I'm missing something, pleae do point it out.

Granted, this is from most of the consumer EULAs I've seen, but I believe the Enterprise ones for Word contain much the same flavor, and I KNOW that all Windows OS EULAs since at least 98 contain revocation clauses, albeit limited in allowable cause (# By exceedingly vague wording).

Nothing vague about the wording that I can see. This is clearly not a clause that says "we can revoke this license at any time and for any reason or none at all".

Of course, I live in America, where businesses have long since ceased to be sane.

I live in the Netherlands, but the EULAs here are generally copied/translated verbatim from the originals.

Strangely enough, I've seen several EULAs with 'no weapons' clauses. (The Linux version of Seatools lacks that section for some reason.)

From http://proprietary.clendons.co.nz/licenses/eula/wi ndowsxpprofessional-eula.htm:

* Storage/Network Use. You may also store or install a copy
  of the Product on a storage device, such as a network
server, used only to install or run the Product on your
other Workstation Computers over an internal network;
however, you must acquire and dedicate an additional
license for each separate Workstation Computer on or
from which the Product is installed, used, accessed,
displayed or run. A license for the Product may not be
shared or used concurrently on different Workstation
Computers.

---

Personally, I would consider a CD (or DVD) a storage device.

How can they? Read the EULA http://proprietary.clendons.co.nz/licenses/eula/wi ndowsxpprofessional-eula.htm:

To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, in no event shall microsoft or its suppliers be liable for any special, incidental, punitive, indirect, or consequential damages whatsoever (including, but not limited to, damages for loss of profits or confidential or other information, for business interruption, for personal injury, for loss of privacy, for failure to meet any duty including of good faith or of reasonable care, for negligence, and for any other pecuniary or other loss whatsoever) arising out of or in any way related to the use of or inability to use the product, the provision of or failure to provide support or other services, informaton, software, and related content through the product or otherwise arising out of the use of the product, or otherwise under or in connection with any provision of this EULA, even in the event of the fault, tort (including negligence), strict liability, breach of contract or breach of warranty of microsoft or any supplier, and even if Microsoft or any supplier has been advised of the possibility of such damages.

Essentially if you register the software, you agree to hold MS harmless for any damages; you cannot sue them for nonperformance. BTW, this is a pretty standard EULA; MS is not out of line with industry practice here.

3. From EULA

Microsoft and its suppliers provide the Product and support services (if any) AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and hereby disclaim all other warranties and conditions, either express, implied or statutory, including, but not limited to, any (if any) implied warranties, duties or conditions of merchantability, of fitness for a particular purpose, of reliability or availability, of accuracy or completeness of responses, of results, of workmanlike effort, of lack of viruses, and of lack of negligence, all with regard to the Product, and the provision of or failure to provide support or other services, information, software, and related content through the Product or otherwise arising out of the use of the Product.

I have this bad habbit of bringing facts to the irrational discussions on Slashdot.
they [b]must[/b] be publicly visible

Have you ever looked? Here let me help
Windows XP Home here
Windows 98 Downloads here
A whole bunch more

I think Microsoft just violated section 13 of their EULA by Idemnifying customers:

http://proprietary.clendons.co.nz/licenses/eula/wi ndowsxpprofessional-eula.htm

"...IN NO EVENT SHALL MICROSOFT OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR..."

Who's up for a class action lawsuit to sue Microsoft for breaching their contract?

IIRC, the EULA says that Microsoft can access the system and it's data and that is against the public privacy prection laws.
You remember absolutely incorrectly. The Windows XP and newer applicable EULAs say certain things, and that is not one of them.

The EULA does not say that Microsoft can access your system. It says that if you utilize Internet components Microsoft may check thier versions and provide updates based on this check. It specifically says that this information is only if you choose to utilize Internet components. On top of that, they let you know that any information is technical in nature only.

(Read all about it here).

and it's data
That bit is definately not mentioned, and not covered under the license agreement. Even if that was in the EULA, it wouldn't be enforceable, since it would clearly run afoul of many many many laws regarding so called "digital tresspassing". Additionally, the clauses that deal with this in the EULA are discounted if you choose not to access the Internet components in question (for example, Internet Explorer or Outlook Express). I've worked in hospital IT for quite some time, and by and large PCs for office workers are denied Internet access. Additionally, embedded systems are often completely disconnected from the network.

against the public privacy prection laws.
Well, first off, I assume you are talking about HIPAA. Otherwise, there are very few privacy laws that would apply. If you are talking about HIPAA, you are just plain wrong.

HIPAA requires that for "qualifying medical information" a notice of privacy practices must be provided for certain types of disclosures. If you've been to the hospital in the last few years, you've recieved one at check-in. Same with your doctor. Chances are one is in every bill you recieve as well. For disclosures outside of certain limitations, a release must be signed and held on file, and updated after a specified interval.

However the allowable disclosures include many, many exceptions. One of these is for technical troubleshooting, debugging, testing, etc. Meaning that IF Microsoft wanted, it'd be perfectly legal for them to get a look at this data if they had a valid technical reason to do so.. this covers cases where, say, a memory dump was transmitted back to MS and it contained bits of data that could be constructed back to a specific patient. No release is needed for this data, and no laws are broken.

Moreover, information like your name, address, sex, age, social security number, phone number, etc is not protected medical information. Nor is the fact that your name is in a hospitals information system. For a disclosure to require a release the information has to pertain to a specific medical procedure or service rendered on a specific date. That information has to be provided in an individually identifiable manner to qualify for protection. This means if you took a 100% copy of the entire database of procedures and patient information, and struck the patient names, addresses, and social security numbers you'd be just peachy fine.

Additionally, since MS specifically notes that it uses no identifiable personal data and only uses technical information, the hospital is off the hook.

Finally, just so you understand me completely, for MS to run afoul of HIPAA, they would have to illictly hack into a hospital network, copy the entire medical history of a person including personally identifiable information, and then disclose that information to another outside party.

Maybe it's time for a class action. IMHO.
Luckily, you are wrong. In your idea of what the world would be like, hospitals would be basically hamstrung with regards to IT.

Don't forget to read the EULA. In it you'll find out you aren't allowed to install an IMAP server, SMTP server, or apache server for non-local connections. It's right there on page 1.

IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL OR USE THE PRODUCT; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND.

2. You agree that Macromedia may audit your use of the Software for compliance with these terms at any time, upon reasonable notice. In the event that such audit reveals any use of the Software by you other than in full compliance with the terms of this Agreement, you shall reimburse Macromedia for all reasonable expenses related to such audit in addition to any other liabilities you may incur as a result of such non-compliance.

(b) If you use the Redistributables, or the "Sample Code" or "Redistributable Code" portions of the SDK Software (as described in Section 4.2(b) (all of the foregoing referred to in this paragraph as the "Licensed Software"), then in addition to your compliance with the applicable distribution requirements described for the Licensed Software, the following also applies. Your license rights to the Licensed Software are conditioned upon your (i) not incorporating Identified Software into or combining Identified Software with the Licensed Software or a derivative work thereof; (ii) not distributing Identified Software in conjunction with the Licensed Software or a derivative work thereof; and (iii) not using Identified Software in the development of a derivative work of the Licensed Software. "Identified Software" means software which is licensed pursuant to terms that directly or indirectly (A) create, or purport to create, obligations for Microsoft with respect to the Licensed Software or derivative work thereof or (B) grant, or purport to grant, to any third party any rights or immunities under Microsoft's intellectual property or proprietary rights in the Licensed Software or derivative work thereof.

Identified Software includes, without limitation, any software that requires as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of such software that other software incorporated into, derived from or distributed with such software be (1) disclosed or distributed in source code form; (2) be licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (3) be redistributable at no charge.

...is that he's apparently white-cane-and-glasses blind to a lesson which history should have burned deeply into our collective national psyches by now, one of the major reasons for the founding of the USA, and a problem which even Australia constitutionally recognises (although in practice we are, like the uSA, pretty much ignoring our own Constitution whenever it really counts).

I'm talking about blending religion and politics.

If he wants the Inquisition back, albeit named something harmless-sounding like "the department of Homeland Security", then George's going the right way about it. The Inquisition had a friendly-sounding name as well, "the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith", but that didn't stop it from causing tens (possibly hundreds, they also liked destroying records) of millions of deaths or perverting the government in scores of countries so that competing faiths stood no chance. Mao's and Stalin's faith-based purges weren't as subtle but killed around about as many people and clearly exposed the fallacy of regarding humanism or atheism as in any way benevolent or "safe" faiths.

I think Microsoft counts as a religion, too. Pope Bill and Cardinals Steve, Paul and so on presiding over the congregation of money-worshippers. Whether you take that idea seriously or not, they're distorting government in pretty much the same way a religion does. The irony of them claiming to have any corporate rights should be pretty clear to anyone who's read one of their EULAs.

To say that Anderer's either off his tree or snowing like Alaska in January would be something of an understatement, but it's inumportant compared to the context in which all of this crap is happening. Bush may be unsubtle about how he lets the USA get pushed around by religious and corporate interests, but Clinton didn't exactly raise a rash of red flags against most of the related issues either. If I was a Yank, I'd be voting against both Bush and Clinton.

If you have read the Windows EULA, you would realise that if you have a legal copy, you still have no rights. Examples here and here.

1. GRANT OF LICENSE. This Section of the EULA describes Your general rights to install and use the Software Product The license rights described in this Section are subject to all other terms and conditions of this EULA.
General License Grant to Install and Use Software Product. You may install and use one copy of the Software Product on a single computer, device, workstation, terminal, or other digital electronic or analog device ("Device"). You may make a second copy of the Software Product and install it on a portable Device for the exclusive use of the person who is the primary user of the first copy of the Software Product. A license for the Software Product may not be shared. Alternative License Grant for Storage/Network Use. As an alternative to the rights granted in the previous section, You may install a copy of the Software Product on one storage Device, such as a network server, and allow individuals within Your business or enterprise to access and use the Software Product from other Devices over a private network, provided that You acquire and dedicate a license for the storage Device upon which the Software Product is installed and each separate Device from which the Software Product is accessed and used. A license for the Software Product may not be used concurrently on different Devices.

So yes, you need licenses for everything. The full text of this and other MS EULAs can be found here.

Link toOpen Letter to Microsoft Users, and to Commerce Commission Complaint.

Link toOpen Letter to Microsoft Users, and to Commerce Commission Complaint.

Why give up? This is exactly what they want - keep battering for long enough, and cracks will show. A Law Firm here in New Zealand went as far as to lodge a complaint with the Commerce Commission regarding Microsoft's new licensing regime. Although the complaint was rejected, the new scheme has so incensed one of the partners, Craig Horrocks, that he has set up a site here which has a copy of the complaint, an open letter to MS users, and assorted news articles. You can be assured that this law firm is not about to take it lying down, as this site shows.

Why give up? This is exactly what they want - keep battering for long enough, and cracks will show. A Law Firm here in New Zealand went as far as to lodge a complaint with the Commerce Commission regarding Microsoft's new licensing regime. Although the complaint was rejected, the new scheme has so incensed one of the partners, Craig Horrocks, that he has set up a site here which has a copy of the complaint, an open letter to MS users, and assorted news articles. You can be assured that this law firm is not about to take it lying down, as this site shows.

Why give up? This is exactly what they want - keep battering for long enough, and cracks will show. A Law Firm here in New Zealand went as far as to lodge a complaint with the Commerce Commission regarding Microsoft's new licensing regime. Although the complaint was rejected, the new scheme has so incensed one of the partners, Craig Horrocks, that he has set up a site here which has a copy of the complaint, an open letter to MS users, and assorted news articles. You can be assured that this law firm is not about to take it lying down, as this site shows.

A Law Firm here in New Zealand went as far as to lodge a complaint with the Commerce Commission regarding Microsoft's new licensing regime. The new scheme has so incensed one of the partners, Craig Horrocks, that he has set up a site here which has a copy of the complaint, an open letter to MS users, and assorted news articles. makes for interesting reading.

A Law Firm here in New Zealand went as far as to lodge a complaint with the Commerce Commission regarding Microsoft's new licensing regime. The new scheme has so incensed one of the partners, Craig Horrocks, that he has set up a site here which has a copy of the complaint, an open letter to MS users, and assorted news articles. makes for interesting reading.

A Law Firm here in New Zealand went as far as to lodge a complaint with the Commerce Commission regarding Microsoft's new licensing regime. The new scheme has so incensed one of the partners, Craig Horrocks, that he has set up a site here which has a copy of the complaint, an open letter to MS users, and assorted news articles. makes for interesting reading.

In NZ, we have a law firm taking Microsoft to the commerce commission for issues related to Software Assurance. He has writen a very nice brief outlining many of the issues, and it is well worth a read. Click here to read more. There are links to various letters and news articles covering this issue.

One big point that the Commerce Commission raised, is that if SA is such a big issue, why aren't bigger companies and countries picking it up?!

Telstra rock.

Really.

--
I wish, I wish, to be a fish.