Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft XP License Prohibits VNC
jhml writes: "Looks like the monopoly muscles are flexing. According to this article in Infoworld, the XP license prohibits products other than from Microsoft's from being used to remotely control an XP workstation. So ... guess they were having a little trouble with VNC being widely used?"
I was curious, so I installed XP a little while back. Ran just fine with two different versions of VNC
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
PCAnywhere 10.5 includes Windows XP support, and IIRC still uses its own protocol / mechanism for doing so, rather than MS RDP. Symantec have the Designed for Windows XP logo on the PCA box.
How is this affected?
Read the agreement. What Microsoft doesn't want you to do is to use VNC to create a terminal services like server where you install an app once and share it with your network.
No one cares if you remote control it for administrative purposes.
A developer can put anything they want in their license agreement. It doesn't mean it is legal and it certainly doesn't mean they can enforce it. It certainly won't stop me from running VNC on Windows. Fuck 'em.
Err not quite, there is one case although the precedent is fairly weak, the case was pretty narrow and was not appealled. The case involved a CDROM with telephone numbers on that would not be copyrightable as a mere aggregation of non copyright data. The court held that the shrinkwrap license established a contractual agreement not to copy the data, although the precedent is weak since there were other issues involved.
Also in the DeCSS case the existence of a shrinkwrap license was considered significant, although it was not decisive in that particular case.
That is beside the point in this case however since the clause would probably constitute an illegal restraint of trade if interpreted as in the article. Also the courts are much more willing to interpret clickwrap as establishing the type of copyright protections that they are used to in other media, than they are to allow the introduction of extraneous terms.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
VNC isn't the application that would be affected here. VNC is basically a free version of PC Anywhere.
The application in trouble here is rdesktop, which allows you to connect a Windows Terminal Server or MetaFrame server over the RDP protocol.
MSFT doesn't want you to run MS apps on a server without owning a MSFT product. A CAL costs like $30, while a windows xp pro license is like 200.
I bet this sort of licensing restriction is illegal. I'm sure that IBM and Unisys had similar lines in their EULA's 20 years ago with mainframe systems to force companies to purchase expensive green screen terminals. Today people routinely connect with IBM 3270 emulators without any legal hassles.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
(Score: -1, incorrect, troll, flamebait.)
A) Screenshots are products of the program. They are "derived works" in the sense of Copyright law, but they are only derived in the sense that the .bmp files you produce from are derived works -- they are yours to do with as you please unless you were specificially forbidden from doing it by the license of the creator. Which doesn't apply here -- quoth the GPL:
and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Since the screenshot isn't of the GNOME source, it's not covered by the GPL.
B) Even if the GPL did cover the output of the program, which it doesn't, use of VNC still wouldn't be prohibited. The GPL only mandates that you release source to people whom you have given binaries, and that only if they requested it -- if you're using VNC for personal use or internal to your company, no one will be requesting the source so you're fine. If you're allowing complete strangers VNC access, then you have greater problems than possible GPL violations.
"Evil company X is threatening to restrict our rights! Let's all get together to stop--OOOH! SHINEY!!!" -- AC
Wow... with all these seemingly sincere people concerned about the remote administration capabilities of their machines; it's funny how not one of you mentioned asking the author of the EULA exactly what they meant.
In fact, neither did the author of the article on InfoWorld, nor the person interviewed by InfoWorld.
If you had, Microsoft would have replied, and I QUOTE:
"That portion of the EULA is only regarding products that allow multi-client Terminal Services, or Citrix [Metaframe] style access to the machine. It has nothing to do with VNC... there is nothing in the EULA that prevents remote access for administration..."
The quote is from a MS rep that I reached on the phone in about 5 minutes. Gee... that was hard, huh?
Of course, nobody really cares about the truth... enjoy your silly FUD.
The reason I say this is going to cause MS some problems is becuase of a experience I just went through with a game server. I set up a Ghost Recon dedicated server at the colo facilites where I work. Wasn't I surprised when I found out that you can NOT use Remote Desktop to start the game, because the game engages a Direct x window that MUST draw to the local screen. Since Remote Desktop draws the remote client the server dies. Thank God for VNC. If it wasn't for VNC I'd have to drive to work just to make changes to the game. Pretty lame.
If only Ubi would port the server to linux I'd be a happy man.
The past is just the present only older -me-
Ooh, I can run "cmd.exe".
and with cmd.exe, I can manage a machine. You don't really think that I GUI log into 300 machines to install a patch, do you?
has found a click thru license that has been upheld in court. They can demand all kinds of things but what the courts let them get away with is entirely a different matter
The case you're talking about is ProCD,Inc. vs. Zeidenberg, and your remarks are close but a bit off. Because white-page phonebook listings and similar "brute-force" database lists that are the product of hard work but no creativity are *not* protected by copyright (The Suprmeme Court's "Feist v. Rural Telephone" decision), ProCd was able to gather up phone books and create a national phone CD. Zeidenberg then took the CD, created a web interface to the data and was sued by ProCD.
Zeidenberg won in District Court, ProCd appealed to the 7th Circuit and lost there, and Zeidenberg did not appeal to the Supreme Court. In the 7th circuit ruling, Judge Easterbrook specifically reversed the trial court on the enforceability of shrinkwrap licenses. The way courts do things, this precedent is binding in all the District Courts in the 7th Circuit, but not elsewhere.
From a copyright perspective, this decision is ludicrous, because it in essence says that any publisher can slap a "contract" on something (book, cd, etc.) and thereby void any rights consumers otherwise might have, but until someone with bucks take the matter to the Supreme Court, we lack a definitive answer to the problem...
Lemme highlight the whole thing, so that you can read the whole thing:
Microsoft's XP license agreement says, "Except as otherwise permitted by the NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop features described below, you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display, or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer, nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display, or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless the Device has a separate license for the Product."
What microsoft wants here is everyone who uses XP to have a license for the device they are using XP on. So if your friend sets up a WinXP box with a VNC server, microsoft doesn't want you "enjoying the functionality and features of XP" from your win98 box, win2k box, linux box or your toaster. Microsoft feels that people may not upgrade from win98 to XP because they might use VNC to access a seperate, 3rd party XP machine. It's pretty gay, but unless you are running XP on all machines involved... you are breaking their license.
Don't buy XP, don't worry about.
The point I didn't make before was this:
That there is something fundamentally wrong with software companies telling people what they can and cannot do with their machines. I wonder when it was that MS went from being a distributer of software to being, well, a mafia-like organization. If you think about it, this is how a a mob works.
And I do run Linux at home, I was just bitching for the public comsumption
nahtanoj
That still doesn't change the fact that their EULA is not legally enforcable.
The whole big deal with UCITA is to make these shrinkwrap/clickthrough licenses legally binding. Otherwise it's just bullshit.
Would they sue you over it? Maybe, but they probably won't win on purely legal grounds.
There is a RDP client for UNIX/Linux. It's called RDesktop and it works quite well.
http://www.rdesktop.org for more info.
Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
it seems as though no one has read the XP EULA and the nonsense of all the comments. let me post excerts from it. No where Does it mentions anything about Remote Assistance and that you can not use VNC and it says that if you use Netmeeting, et al, you can use the other persons Word in the session.
Qua
* Installation and Use. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this EULA, you may install, use, access,display and run only one (1) copy of the SOFTWARE on the COMPUTER. The SOFTWARE may not be used by more than two (2) processors at any one time on the COMPUTER, unless a higher number is indicated on the Certificate of Authenticity. You may permit a maximum of ten (10) ("Connection Maximum") computers or other electronic devices (each a "Device") to connect to the COMPUTER to utilize the services of the SOFTWARE solely for File and Print services, Internet Information services, and remote access (including connection sharing and telephony services). The ten (10) Connection Maximum includes any indirect connections made through "multiplexing" or other software or hardware which pools or aggregates connections. Except as otherwise permitted below, you may not use the Device to use, access, display or run the SOFTWARE, the SOFTWARE's User Interface or other executable software residing on the COMPUTER.
* NetMeeting/Remote Assistance/Remote Desktop Features. SOFTWARE may contain NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop technologies that enable the SOFTWARE or other applications installed on the COMPUTER to be used remotely between two or more computers, even if the SOFTWARE or application is installed on only one COMPUTER. You may use NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop with all Microsoft products; provided however, use of these technologies with certain Microsoft products may require an additional license. For Microsoft and non-Microsoft products, you should consult the license agreement accompanying the applicable product or contact the applicable licensor to determine whether use of NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, or Remote Desktop is permitted without an additional license.
Services also typically run as different users, as do system processes such as winlogon.exe, svchost.exe, csrss.exe and mstask.exe. As others have pointed out, Terminal Services also allows multiple users to run programs with their own privilages. In fact, Windows NT, 2K, and XP allow finer-grained control of processes, threads, and objects than Unix does. What XP allows is an easy way for multiple users to have their own individual desktops available at the same time (and their own Explorer process running on their appropriate desktop). Download Process Explorer from System Internals to see how processes under NT work.
OK, this is so far down on the list nobody will read it, but here goes...
I don't think that VNC is the issue here, because the EULA seems to be prohibiting running multiple instances of a program on separate displays. This is not what VNC is on the Windows platform: VNC is simply showing one instance on multiple displays.
In this sense, VNC is no different than having a monitor splitter (like stores often have to showcase their monitor selection, being driven by one computer running XP).
I have to wonder: is Microsoft's next tactic going to be requiring a separate license for each pair of EYES viewing their product?
Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
It is a well established legal principle that ambiguities in a contract of adhesion (a contract where one party dictates the terms and the other party must accept or reject the terms in total) are to be interpreted in favor of the non-drafting party.
The unless concerns what licenses the "Device" has. Since the term "Device" is used both before and after the nor, it is unclear whether the sentance is to be parsed (A) nor (B unless C) or ((A) nor (B)) unless C. I would argue that the second construction is the correct on. If they did not want the unless to apply to A, they could have written to as two different sentances.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
This was right after NT 4.0, and MS was just starting to really turn nasty - everybody was still talking about DR-DOS and the WP/Word "one version off" incompatability, and the vaporware Windows was still seen as an funny accident that happened to really work in MS's favor, and OS/2 was still an option.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
C:\>ver
/?
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
C:\>shutdown
Usage: shutdown [-i | -l | -s | -r | -a] [-f] [-m \\computername] [-t xx] [-c "c
omment"] [-d up:xx:yy]
No args Display this message (same as -?)
-i Display GUI interface, must be the first option
-l Log off (cannot be used with -m option)
-s Shutdown the computer
-r Shutdown and restart the computer
-a Abort a system shutdown
-m \\computername Remote computer to shutdown/restart/abort
-t xx Set timeout for shutdown to xx seconds
-c "comment" Shutdown comment (maximum of 127 characters)
-f Forces running applications to close without warning
-d [u][p]:xx:yy The reason code for the shutdown
u is the user code
p is a planned shutdown code
xx is the major reason code (positive integer less than 256)
yy is the minor reason code (positive integer less than 65536)
Carpe Cerevisi - Seize the Beer
I understand your assessment, and if correct I think this part of the license defeats perhaps the most valuable part of Remote Desktop
I've been using XP since beta 2 (anyone remember that? quite an experience) and have been using remote desktop the entire time. At school, we have a collection of 2k and NT machines, and a bunch of imacs. I have many programs installed at home that I don't have at school. When I need them, I sit at any of the computers, go to a web page hosted on IIS on the XP machine at home which loads up an activex version of the client. Suddenly, I'm at my home computer, running homesite or whatever. Even my visual styles and sound come through.
Now this is cool, but I can do this with VNC. What coolest part of Remote Desktop is actually disabled in XP Pro and Home for the very reasons that this license exists. In Windows 2000 Server I can have 20 clients, running whatever version of windows, or even Windows CE (or unix with 3rd party stuff) connecting to the server, each running their own instance of windows and applications, invisible to each other. But in order to do that, I have to have 20 licenses. As I recall, they're not full windows licenses, but Terminal Client Licenses. Microsoft is doing the exact same thing with XP client. I think this actually becomes a non-issue since the feature is disabled anyway, this just prevents 3-rd party programs from enabling it. Longhorn, supposedly, will have it enabled, so you can have multiple simultaneous sessions on one xp client computer.
Sorry this post is getting so long, but here's my conclusion. I don't think this license is preventing, or attempting to prevent the use of VNC or pcanywhere. It is trying to prevent the use of and XP client (pro or home version) as an application server. The functionality is essentially there, though disabled, and Microsoft would much rather have you buy the server version. Just like IIS is availiable, but crippled, in the client versions. If you're going to use the computer as a server, buy the server OS, according to MS.
In other words, this isn't an attack on VNC, it's an attack on people buying the wrong os verison.