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?"
Ditto,
I used it to control a buddy's computer and set up the software to allow him to take over my machine in turn. I had no problems getting it running - other than doing the IP forwarding thing on my firewall.
I understand it works for all sort of machines, too. Take that microsoft terminal server!!!!
The fact that it's free, performs the same functionality as TS but works on multiple platform means that it totally rules.
anyway....
J:)
Oh well, no point in steering now.
The reason this is even mentioned is because it has to do with "Citrix like" remote applications. Essentially, you can't setup a Windows box and have 50 Linux desktops connect to it ala VNC (for example) without having the appropriate licenses. This is no different then your usual CAL (Client Access License) for using a Windows network. The EULA just get's more specific about "Remote Desktops" since it's getting more popular.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Free cell phone tracking
Of course remote desktop works better between two Windows machines than VNC.
Microsoft wrote support for it right into the OS.
When Microsoft wants to, they can beat any program by using resources (source code) that nobody else has.
Microsoft is *always* behind the curve with features.. they wait until something is popular, is proven in the marketplace... then copy it and do whatever they can to destroy the company/team that developed it.
If I hear Gates or Balmer mention 'innovate' one more time.. I'm going to loose my lunch. Do they really belive that is what they do? Or do they laugh themselves to teh bank on the way back from the courtroom? Err, their videotapes do anyway...
It's hard to tell without the context of the quotation, but I would assume 'the Product' to refer to Windows XP or Remote Desktop. The emphasis also seems to be on "unless the Device has a separate license for the Product.". That seems to me to have a significant different implication than we are led to believe by the article. Does anyone have definitions for 'The Product' and 'the Device' from the terms of the license agreement?
What?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
remote assistance is much more efficient than VNC
Maybe -- but the point of the discussion is whether you're even allowed to use something else.
Microsoft's remote assistance might be better than VNC -- but they should have no right to tell users that they can't use VNC. If you pay for XP (or get it preloaded...) you should be able to use it any way you choose.
I do wonder if that clause in the license was meant to prevent using VNC, or if it was an attempt to prevent multiple users from accessing a single Microsoft box and running multiple instances of Office or something like that. Perhaps the author of the original story should have contacted M$ and asked what their take was on that. I'm sure that they would likely have disavowed that they were trying to prevent using VNC in conjuntion with XP. (I doubt they could enforce it anyway...)
I've always thought it's funny you don't get to accept or decline the EULA until AFTER you plunk down your money for it...
I've always thought it funny that people get so damn surprised that Microsoft puts draconian restrictions like this into every new Windows EULA. You know they're going to do it, so why do you plunk your money down until you can find a copy of their EULA to review?
Besides, the BSA, which is the only organization that gives a damn and has the clout to go after people violating software licenses, won't go after you unless you're a business, or are dealing/distributing software. Microsoft/BSA couldn't care less if Joe Bob computer user manages their Windows machine with VNC. They do it so they can force corporations to buy more Microsoft software to manage their machines, and drive out any other competitors. Can you say "monopoly building"? I thought you could.
We already know that there are whole clauses in licenses that are unenforcable - there are certain rights you can't give up in a contract, certain types of liability that a manufacturer can't disclaim. If I make an unsafe product I can still be held accountable even though the license disclaimed all liability. How is this different? The contract can't dictate whether you can use it with other people's software.. that's your own decision.
Imagine if the BSA was allowed to raid your office and enforce 'interoperability!' MS ends up suing you because you ran VNC on XP desktops, Oracle sues you because there was an SQL Server on the same machine as Oracle, and Netscape sues you because they're angry at the world!
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
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
I'm not convinced they're trying to slay VNC or anybody else. I think they're covering their own butts. With all these backdoor viruses floating around, I think MS is trying to prevent themselves from being taken to court if somebody is hacked. It sure saves them from having to write code to fix Outlook Express.
"Derp de derp."
Yes! Let's here it for cygwin! I totally agree with you, if it weren't for cygwin, I too would go insane whenever using Windows. When forced to use Windows, make it seem like Unix. Life is better.
"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."
This is taken out of context, but I'm assuming 'Product' is referring to XP. It doesn't say you can't run VNC, it says that there needs to be a seperate license of XP for the client. That is bogus for VNC users, but if you look a little closer at the wording, I'm not sure they exactly intended to wipe out VNC. It sounds like they're saying 'you have to be using XP to control XP', but that's only true if this agreement is for the home edition of XP. Again, this was taken out of context, but I can't help but wonder if this was taken from the Corporate version of XP's agreement.
If that's the case, suddenly it makes more sense. What MS is trying to do is get companies to buy the XP Enterprise Edition (at least I assume there's a version like that...) that has 25 client licenses. In which case, using PC Anywhere to connect to that product would require an extra license. This sounds shitty unless you think about it some more. Computers are getting more powerful, right? So it gets to a point where you could have one computer powerful enough to perform a number of people's needs, all you'd need is a terminal to connect to it.
Let me tell you about an interesting feature that XP has that the rest of the Windows line doesn't: It can have multiple users running programs at the same time. Unix has done this for ages, but XP finally supports this. You can log in as yourself, run a program, then log in as somebody else and run a program there too. In effect, both your programs are still running. A company looking to save a few bucks could make a central computer running XP and hack a version of VNC to divvy up incoming connections into different users. Then they build a bunch of Linux machines using VNC that connect to this server and make it look like a Windows desktop. They could buy exactly one copy of Office and support a whole office with that license. This would be harder to do with Win2K, but it seems like it'd be fairly easy with XP. I think MS's license is saying that you can't do this.
As a side effect, VNC and PC Anywhere are technically unable to be used legitimately, unless MS specificially says it's ok. They probably have done that with PCAnywhere (there's hints to that effect on Symantec's site), but VNC probably won't be since it's open source.
Alot of people are interpreting this line of text as an attempt to maintain a monopoly, or to wipe out VNC or something like that, but that really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If MS really didn't like remote computing, then by default all they'd have to do is disable the common ports used for it. I think it's more likely they're trying to prevent people from doing something that hasn't been attempted yet.
"Derp de derp."
from reading the license, it appears that ssh is also excluded (though probably not a popular and noteworthy for the article).
"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."
this is really stretching it, but say you've got a dual boot machine with linux/XP on it. by reading this license you can't boot to linux and remotely run any software on the box. maybe "Workstation computer" is defined someplace else in the license to only include that area of the computer with the xp install, but i'm not counting on it.
Okay, so basically, it makes sense -- sort of. I imagine they just don't want people to use software off a Windows XP box without forking the mandatory bucks Redmond's way. Which does make sense, the way they've long been imagining LANs: one Windows client per end user, connecting to the central Windows servers. They just don't want it to be legally possible to 'cheat' and use the server software without paying for the client licenses as well. You may or may not agree with their idea of a network, but hey, whatever works for them.
.NET programs, and more precisely, Web services, count as "other executable software"?
However, that part of the license is really strangely worded. It can be read much more broadly than that, effectively forbidding, say, SSH clients connecting to an SSH server on the XP server box and running things there, or any other form of non-MS-client based networking. I wonder if they have something in mind. Do
-- B.
This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
Anyone who has used the major vendors Unix offerings has been hit by some version of "per user" licensing before. Those who have seen this conclude they are all broken.
Many unix vendors only allow 2 "users" to be loged in at once in default installs. Of course, if you install software that doesn't write to utmp (be that an SSH server, or a web server, or any number of other things) then the limit doesn't apply. The number of ways around this are numerous, and most don't even violate the license.
Microsoft, finally getting with the program, has a similar problem. Their software can finally support multiple users and applications in a reasonable way. They realize, rightfully so, that one big honkin machine, running the same software, can serve hundreds of users. Rather than hundreds of machines, each with a license.
This is a prime example of "value based pricing". I don't think the concept is bad, but many of the implementations are, well, bad. I'm afraid that there will never be a good solution to this problem.
The most fair thing I can come up with is to charge a business per user. Period. If those users all log into a single computer, or each have their own, the fee should be the same. Thus companies can decide to be client server, with a PC on every desk, or mainframe like, with a big server or two and dumb terminals, all at the same cost. In the end, the cost to the software company to develop both is fairly similar, and having the price be the same prevents killing one market in favor of another.
I feel microsoft's wording is overly restrictive here, but at the same time there are more than a few companies who would only buy one copy of {Windows, Office, Linux, Photoshop, etc} if they could find a way to get away with it, including spending a pile of cash on a central server. It's really sad that people won't pay for good software.
Of course, nobody really cares about the truth... enjoy your silly FUD.
I'll concede that the article is just FUD iff your MS rep is willing to put it in writing under his signature as a representative of the company. (A pointer to a scan of the letter will suffice as proof.)
Otherwise, his statement means nothing.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Ooookay. So it's more likely that MS is trying to cut off use of VNC than it is trying to prevent people using Windoes XP like they intended?
I don't see why you want me modded down, doesn't sound like you read my post at all.
"Derp de derp."
I also agree with an earlier poster -- for the Windows platform, the Terminal Services client is *FAR* superior to VNC -- of course it is -- VNC works by sending bitmaps across the pipe -- the terminal services client can send API calls -- same principle as behind Xwindows.
Nonsense!! With Palm VNC I can take over my desktop with my Kyocera Smartphone. Can you give me a Windows Terminal services client that runs on a palm pilot? There are VNC clients and servers for a large variety of platforms. What do you think are the chances that MS will permit interoperability with Linux (which they've called THE major threat to Windows) or with PalmOS (the major competitor to WinCE)?
Window Terminal Services are only far superior if you've already been assimilated. Even if I am sitting in front of a Windows machine, a Terminal Services client won't help me take over one of my Linux boxes. Terminal Services is mostly just good for locking me into Windows. No thanks.
Adrian
I'm sorry folks.
I'm tired of hearing people bitch about Windows. Linux is a better OS. You have no excuse. Go and buy RedHat and stop bitching about the MS EULA.
It reminds me of all those people who bitch about voting because we have a "two party system" and then on election day, they still vote for democrats or republicans. Either your part of the problem or the solution.
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
An AC wrote:
> Sure, punish success. That'll inspire people to create!
Microsoft has broken the law and been found guilty. That is a matter of public record (verified by an Appeals court). Breaking the law carries a penalty.
Allowing Microsoft to break the same laws over and over (like they are doing now) and to let them successfully get away with it only inspires them and others to continue breaking the law. Microsoft needs to be punished so they and others will take the law seriously.
Take this case for example. The EULA of XP is forbidding the use of an entire category of software if it comes from a third party. If XP does catch on to become the version of Windows used the most, then everybody else making that category of software is immediately out of business, regardless of how successful or good their product is. How exactly does that situation inspire people to create? It doesn't, it punishes them for trying to create. Microsoft is wrecking their businesses just because Microsoft is greedy and wants people to buy more licenses.
Maybe you don't care about Microsoft's victims. When Microsoft starts charging you for every time you turn your computer on, will you care then?
Then it will be too late.
What happens when you embrace and extend Godzilla? Nuclear heartburn!
See "Godzilla 2000" (released in Japan as "Godzilla 2000 Millenium") for details.
That's fine, go ahead. It's of course your choice. I use remote control software every single day all day long. I need it to be lighting quick and it absolutely has to work over dial as well as LAN/WAN. At times I have two pcANYWHERE sessions open and 2 SMS Remote sessions open on four desktops. I have used VNC, XP Remote Desktop, and pcANYWHERE. They all work but pcANYWHERE works the best. It's easier and faster to use pcANYWHERE. It is more than 2-3 times faster and more responsive to SMS Remote. SMS Remote is too slow for dial use, so I don't even bother. When you click a menu and it takes it 60 seconds to even draw the menu (on a 10Mbps LAN no less), then it sucks. pcANYWHERE is soooo much better.
Yeah it's expensive but if you rely on remote control, then get pcANYWHERE. Otherwise use VNC. If you have X-Windows use VNC with compression and encryption, it works pretty well. However it takes a lot of work to setup compression and encryption.
pcANYWHERE is only available on the Windows platform. I use X-Windows networking features at home and VNC at times at home. I use pcANYWHERE and SMS Remote at work because that is what was provided. I've tested VNC on the Windows platform and it works and works better than SMS Remote but pcANYWHERE kicks it's butt all over the place in speed.
When you need professional remote control that is fast, encrypted and easy to use, look to pcANYWHERE. If you have no budget or are very cross platform look to VNC. Run, don't walk away from any MS remote desktop or control software it's just plain piss poor.
If we were running Unix for everything, it would all be console based OpenSSH, Telnet (internal private filtered server management LAN only), and serial console routers. GUI X stuff would be VNC encrypted with OpenSSH and compressed. It's a beautiful thing.
Until management realizes they can have Windows File & Print servers that are every bit as reliable and trouble free as our midrange Sun boxen and more than a 1/10th the cost of midrange; by using Linux or FreeBSD on our Compaq Servers instead of NT. It will be a much better world.
Funny how thoughtless trolls without basis of fact get modded up... see my sig.
PS. As I've said 100 times, you can use VNC, Citrix, or ANY desktop/application sharing program on XP - you just need licenses for each desktop session.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Really? Does the license make an exception for "administrative purposes"? The quoted portion in the article certainly doesn't point to one.
It might shock you and other readers, but a license in based on the wording of that license. The letter of the law, as it were. Not on any individual's interpretation of its intent.
Granted, you wouldn't be alone. It wouldn't be the first time an astute reader pointed out a particularly nasty bit of licensing, the issue was published, a company experienced backlash and then promptly assigned their PR people to profess confusion over the issue as the license is reworded and its new version published. Even professionals don't always grasp what their legal / licensing team is up to.
Of course, sometimes they do. And then the end user / organization is forced to deal with the license. Or legal action.
Your Windows software License is only valid for use with the following list of MS-approved software programs...
"Well, I guess Microsoft finally figured out how to take care of the thousands of trojans out there... Just forbid them in the EULA, and surely they'll all go away
No, it's not. It simply means that every computer that has a trojan on it suddenly is out of license for Windows.
Since so many windows PC's out there _are_ trojaned (I still get minda scans in my firewall logs), that means that they can tell all these people to buy pay them a lot of damages, because the computer owners have committed breach of contract by installing the trojan on their computer.
So, Microsoft will not scan the Internet itself for port 31337 (backorifice) and others, and when it finds a trojan, they can send in the troops...
Actually, they can just bundle VNC with the next IEploder or outlook 'security update', making everybody who installs it out-of-license. They could then also claim billions more tax deductions to piracy losses.
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
"run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer" What about ActiveX?
...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.
Notice that last part, where they prohibit running the windows user interface remotely on a machine that is NOT licensed for windows. What they want to prevent is using workstation licenses to set up a "windows server", which could let you run windows programs from a non-windows machine.
This is to keep people from buying a small number of windows licenses and putting a few machines running VNC or the like in the server room, to run those few windows applications that the company hasn't been weaned from yet.
Again they're monopolizing - this time by trying to block migration paths from windows to non-windows shops.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
this is really stretching it, but say you've got a dual boot machine with linux/XP on it. by reading this license you can't boot to linux and remotely run any software on the box.
Wrong, at least going by the quote above--note how it says "you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display, or run . . ." Since "Product" presumably refers to Windows, the clause doesn't apply while you're running Linux. (It might, on the other hand, apply if you had an emulator running Linux under Windows.)
You are correct, even TightVNC with its compression ability is less efficient than using X. VNC really shines by being easy to set up, small to download and compatible with many platforms.
For me the primary reason to use VNC is the small download and cross platform ability. The VNC client is small (500KB IIRC) and there is even an applet version that the host computer can serve to a calling browser. That doesn't mean I don't use X, just that I prefer different tools for different jobs.
-- Button up, your ignorance is showing
Now it's "no big deal, VNC runs just fine".
In 2 years when the next version comes out and VNC won't run anymore it's "no big deal, VNC wasn't legal anyway, it should not run"
It's the same with WPA:
Now: "No big deal, it works fine"
In 2 years: "Subscription is great because you don't get any WPA-codes for unsupported versions anymore anyway."
Isn't Windows used mainly on the desktop?
Isn't Windows a piece of shit on servers?
My major issue with this is not the license, but the lack of choice for the end user. As a consumer, I can't go a buy a new computer without getting a copy of XP. I am forced into this license. But then again, that is why this causes so much fuss. I suppose now that I have gone from playing to 'getting the job done' choice is very important [being dictated to as to what I can and can't do when I am also forced into a license].
Atleast with the GPL et al I can choose not to install it.
chris at darkrock dot co dot uk
http colon slash slash www dot darkrock dot co dot uk
So, are you agreeing or disagreeing with the story?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Which is still ridiculous, given that XP won't give you more than one desktop.
You show me a way to get 15 people using the same non-server XP PC at the same time, each doing whatever they want, and I'll acknowledge that each of those 15 could justifiably need an individual license.
While only one can use it simultaneously, though, the point becomes ridiculous. I mean, are they seriously suggesting that people will run a small bunch of XP boxes then VNC into them from Linux terminals, dancing round until they find a free XP box? And, even if they did, why is this philosophically different from shared computer labs / hotdesking / pool laptops?
This is monopolist extortion, pure and simple.
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
Now, I'm not saying I agree with Microsoft, I'm just playing devil's advocate. Which one might think is one in the same.
There ain't no rules here; we're trying to accomplish something.
Doesn't it seem a little more likely that MS is concocting a legal experiment with the idea of going after people who make/use trojans like Cult of the Dead Cow. So that should a problem arise an army of lawyers can swoop in and visit misery upon the person remote controlling XP computers as opposed to the person who's computer is being remotely controlled? Without even needing the approval, or endorsment of the person who's computer is hosting software violating the license, of course.
Obviously there are some problems with this. Like those people using the trojans almost certainly didn't agree to the license. But if the it describes the rights that MS reserves for itself, they would be the people breaking it as they're running the code. Would they be found to be in violation of something they didn't agree to by the very nature of what they were doing?
It just seems that things being what they are, Microsoft picking a fight with AT&T would be suicidal.
When I worked in New Hamphire, we had power outages quite often, but the server had a UPS. Users could continue to edit the same documents or even continue debugging after the power was restored.
The server was running Linux, the clients were both Linux and Windows based.
I'm toying with an analogy in my head here.
... it's a suggestion, and if you blow your engine by using a crappy oil filter or something , I don't think the warrantee would cover it. Same here, Microsoft probably just doesn't want to support software , so they tell you not to run certain software.
I'm thinking, if microsoft really didn't want VNC to be used, why not do some programming voodoo to make it crash or something?
I think the end user license is kind of silly in forbidding software a user can run. I think its more that microsoft won't support XP configurations running VNC, not that they want to ban people from using it. Or maybe they do, in favor of their built in remote admin stuff.
I can think of an analogy of someone buying a car, and reading the owners manual which says "please only use 'GM/Ford/your car company's name here' oil filters when changing oil, or this company's spark plugs when doing a tune up"
Although I think its kind of silly, VNC is incredibly useful, even over slow dial up connections.
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism