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!
I never could get the sub seven client to run under wine anyway...
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
I wonder what they think of people using SSH to remotely log-in to a windows box. I believe that the openssh daemon compiles natively under cygwin.
Microsoft can KISS MY GRITS
I'm going to use VNC anyway I want. Is there any legally binding stuff that says you can't use it?
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...
Anyway, remote desktop runs much better than VNC, and is sure a lot better than a screen capture... oh well. Besides, with VNC can you play a CD on the remote computer and listen to it at your local machine? =]
What?
"the XP license prohibits products other than from Microsoft's from being used to remotely control an XP workstation"
;-)
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
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.
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
This license would appear to affect much more than just VNC. Any service installed on XP, for example-- including web, P2P, FTP, or SMB. After all, you're "accessing executable software" on the machine. For that matter, you could make a case that responding to ICMP pings is verboten by the EULA. In essence, you are not allowed to use Windows XP Workstation on any network. This is good to know; I'll implement this policy at my home and office immediately.
nice typing skills buddy. its linux, not linuz, by the way. and he has a point. Apparently the concept of a valid argument baffles you.
"Humanize war? You might as talk about humanizing hell!" -- British Admiral Jacky Fisher
Bill, go back back to work and stop playing with the Internet.
Most large companies probably wont be affected, since they buy site licenses for all their OSes anyway.
Malcolm solves his problems with a chainsaw,
And he never has the same problem twice.
Will Microsoft now start suing all the IRC kidies playing with tojans?
---- join dshield.org Distributed Intrusion Detec
try using it with xp's firewall. Change firewall preferences first to allow for it to work properly.
"Humanize war? You might as talk about humanizing hell!" -- British Admiral Jacky Fisher
You say 8 half-working text editors? vi and other console editors are not half-working, and are very useful when you can't afford a remote graphical session, or any other situation where a GUI is not possible or unecessary. As for GUI text editors, gedit, kedit and kwrite all beat notepad hands down. I don't see notepad with features for highlighting based on the language you are saving the text document as. How can you possibly say that notepad beats these common text editors in linux?
You obviously haven't tried linux properly at all. Consider this hypothetical situation - someone is brought up for 20 years using only linux (never heard of windows) in it's current form (KDE 2.2.2, etc). Then they hear about this whizbang operating system called Windows. They decide to give it a whirl as you just did. I'm sure that 15 minutes into the session they would be frustrated when they:
Can you see what is wrong in this example? First of all, this hypothetical person used it for only 15 minutes, not enough time for a full evaluation. Also, this person had grown up using something different, so they favored all the pet features and benefits of their own operating system, while completely missing the good features of the rival operating system. Since they had grown up with this operating system, it's in their mind of how computers should work.
So, until you give it a proper try, it will remain obvious that you don't know what you are talking about.
And I quote: "you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display, or run other executable software residing on the Workstation".
Presumably this would include a telnet/ssh daemon and the cygwin installation needed to make them useful? Cygwin is the life blood of unixen trapped in a windows world - what now if the pointy haired ones 'upgrade' to XP?
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
Tempest in a teapot! Tempest in a teapot! Waste your life spinning license terms to get your name in the papers! News at eleven! You heard it here first!
Pushin' 'n dealin', shovin' 'n stealin'
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.
Annoying but true. Maybe the mainstream coverage will get people thinking about just what a license is and what is should be.
Blogging because I can...
Okay people, we've reached the 2-Borg limit on the main page...
Time to find something non-Microsoft to post before the whole page gets assimilated.
Why didn't they just ban Netscape Navigator in the lisence agreement. Then they wouldn't have had to write IE. What other competing software don't they want people to use? Put that into the lisence too.
I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
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?
they are trying to protect their licences. being far from a microsoft advocate, i will try to look at this from an objective point of view.
they are trying to say, you have paid for one license, therefore you can only view it on one machine. simple. and understandable.
however - this may be turned to set a legal precedent for people breaking into your computer via programs like back orifice and sub seven, etc...
if the court won't do anything about them breaking and entering, maybe microsoft and the BSA can slap a fine on them for illegally using your software without a license.
of course, I've not studied this and may have already happened, in which case I spew forth redundant bile.
The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
What about that, eh?
"Sanity is not statistical", George Orwell, "1984"
FUCK MICROSOFT.
This is pure M$ BULLSHIT. They think they can put anything in their EULA, 'cause customers have no choice but to choose M$.
Next thing we'll see in their EULA, "You must sell us your soul."
k2x
I mean, like who really is going to obey and quit using VNC? Maybe those same people who download vast amounts of pirated music? movies? software? Oh yes, maybe they will get rid of VNC.. they wouldn't want to run it on their pirated copy of XP now, would they?
i hate pansy republicans
That, because we are running their software, this means that they own the computer it runs on. What else could the deal with the "registered programs" and such be about? I own the damn network card, so doesn't that mean I can choose how to use it? It's the same ownership/license debate.
I sick of it all...
Nahtanoj
If you bought Windows XP you should be allowed to run what even software you want on it. Doesn't this break fair business practices anyway? Just my 2 cents.
When you can't crush your competition through weilding the club of monopoly, exercise your 'right' to stick innane clauses in your license agreement.
.NET on Windows.
Next up, and likely to be in Windows TX (Total eXtortion):
- You may not use any fax package other than from microsoft to send faxes from Windows.
- You may not use any compiler other than c# to compile software for Windows.
- Tou may not use any internet tools that were compiled without
- You may not use any installer tools other than from Microsoft to package software for Windows.
- You may not read web sites with any software other than from Microsoft. (Oops, already did that one.)
- You may not read Slashdot from a Microsoft Browser.
I must say, I am starting to enjoy the sheer humor factor that Microsoft provides. While not yet having been punished for behaving in a monopolistic way, Microsoft goes out of their way to make sure everyone knows just how wide thei are willing to swing their axe.
-Chris
-- This sig is only a test. If this were a real sig it would say something witty. --
I drive VNC to tend 2 other machines, cross-platforming between two win98 chassis and a win2k Pro... Now you tell me that M$ is going to shut down VNC just for XPlective. VNC is still neeeded in the real wold folks.. What M$% dosent realize is that there are alot of older machines out there that cannot and will not handle XPlective, and VNC is quite happy with it.
Just for kicks i took VNC and lit off Unreal on a win2k host from a win98 client, and by god, it worked! It looked crappy but it ran fine by all means.. It ate up my 100 base switch tho but the key word was OPERATIONAL. No way am i going to late m$ stuff VNC down the tubes.. if they order it shut down ill post VNC on my website for downloading, and i do suggest to everyone else to do so when this happens..
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
in XP Professional.
I have no tolerance for this kind of invasiveness on how I use my computer and I sincerely hope Microsoft chokes itself on these crappy EULA restrictions. Stunts like these make me so mad... next thing you know, the BSA is going to start suing people for NOT using Microsoft Word.
Mac, here I come. I'm saving for one starting today.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How many reasons do we need to abandon M$ server platform? Evidently, M$ thinks we need even more reasons, so they "embracing & extending" the "Dump M$" movement.
Keep it up, M$. Make the EULA tricky enough, and people will start thinking they have a license problem with every product in the M$ world.
FUD is a two-edged sword. If I have to wonder about the licensing viability of remote-controlling a Microsoft server, then it doesn't have to stay as a Microsoft server.
I understand that this particular license clause is designed to keep you from using Windows XP as a terminal server without buying licenses. However, in our world of lawyering even though the SPIRIT of the clause may be indifferent to VNC, by the LETTER using VNC is against the license agreement.
/last/ program I would expect the Windows XP license to prohibit you from using.
The point I want to raise is this: VNC is an innocuous program. It's not Napster or Morpheus, which I could see Microsoft actually blocking. It's instead something you throw on a box to make your life as an admin easier. In short, VNC is about the
My question: Windows XP has been out there for what, a year? It took people that long to realize that the license agreement disallows the use of VNC? How much longer is it going to be before someone finds the clause that disallows the use of OpenOffice? If such a clause existed, would people be able to find it and realize its implications? Furthermore, how much longer is it going to be before network admins decide that they'd rather not use an operating system where they don't even have any idea what applications they are allowed to run on it? Again, VNC is an extremely common and handy tool, it seemed like the LAST app MS would disallow. If VNC is disallowed, what's next?
-inq
Oh. Nevermind.
I would love to try Remote Desktop. Could you kindly point me to the FreeBSD version? No FreeBSD version? OK, how about a version for Solaris? None? So, what else does it run on besides Microsoft?
Now you see the problem.
-CHris
-- This sig is only a test. If this were a real sig it would say something witty. --
It claimed to be a remote administration tool to compete with MS's Back Office
Back Office was a remote admin tool????
i hate pansy republicans
Or they'd forbid you from running "unauthorized" software on a Windows machine. Then they'd charge software vendors a fee to have their software authorized.
That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
What the focus group didn't realize is that the antipathy was toward having to use a slow GUI-based remote access system at all, rather than just having a half-decent shell.
If you will take a moment to read some of the comments posted above, this is not a question of whether or not RD is "better" than VNC. They both have their respective stregths and weaknesses (if you can get RD to work happily with any of my linux boxes as a client, or have RD run as its own web server so I can access it from the computers on my school's campus, then more power to you!). RD is a great solution for an all-Windows environment, VNC works for those of us who need a bit more flexibility. For the record, I am not a Microsoft hater, happily using various versions of Windows alongside my Linux boxes.
In any case, this discussion is over Microsoft's sheer gall in declaring the use of competitors software to be against the EULA you must agree to in order to use XP. The quality of the abovementioned software is not the issue. Plus, as a poster mentioned above, this clause refers to any "unlicensed" program running or accessing ANY executable on the XP box, which could easily be defined to include ANY sort of network communication (web, FTP, icmp pings, etc.), which is a bit more disturbing. At the moment it's irrelevant except to large corporate environments, but watch out for the day when all these licenses are suddenly enforcable due to advances in technology and the passage of laws.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's detected as a trojan app by "most antivirus manufacturers" because they wrote their software to look specifically for Back Orifice and report it as a trojan app.
Of course, they don't detect PC Anywhere or any of the other "commercial" remote management tools that can be installed on your machine without your knowledge and run stealthily and used maliciously. Like anyone who wants it can't lay their hands on them. I'm not saying Back Orifice is the best tool or even a good tool. However, it is no different in function than many other freely and commercially available remote management tools, and the singling out of it is unfair and malicious in and of itself.
"Sure you're kinda forced to use their OS,..."
Nonsense. I have no Microsoft software and do not miss it at all.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Think "DRM OS."
Use executable software residing on the Workstation? Does that bar the running of any server type or P2P type software that can respond to remote commands? A browser definitely "runs" the software that the webserver constitutes. Does it not?
So, no webservers or file sharing access from non-XP machines?
I know this is often the problem, of reality conflicting with theory... but in theory, can MS even make such a claim? I mean, if it is a licensing issue, then fine. After all, I wouldn't support a product that the user used in a 'stupid' way myself, and while it is known that MS merely uses this to shut out competition because they don't have the technical ability to provide superior products and services, the question remains. Can they do this? If I get XP's and use any method to remote administer or directly control these devices, it should not matter to MS. It is like Purina telling you that you can't feed your dog food to your cat... or your kids... or yourself.
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 ?
PCAnywhere and Terminal Services are better IMHO
Actually, It'd probably go something like this:
Terminal Services > PCAnywhere > VNC
What does MS have to gain from this? I suppose I could understand if they had this clause in the EULA for Win2k- to try to get people to upgrade to XP, where this feature would be "new." But why for Win XP? What do they care what remove display system their users are using together with the built-in method?
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
...that you're only allowed to access XP workstations with Microsoft keyboards and Microsoft mice. The truth behind MS's entry into those markets is revealed at last!
Better not let the BSA catch you with a KVM switch...
-- Alastair
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Reading the excerpted portion of the licence, suggests that MS might even consider a KVM switch to be out of bounds. Can someone come up with another interpretation of "... to permit any Device to use, access, display, or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer ..."
Personally I think this is streaching the interpretation of the licence agreement, but then I refuse to run XP in any case, so it doesn't directly affect me yet.
After all, I could be wrong.
-Rusty
You never know...
#1 For free? The M$ RD client/server isn't free, either free as in beer, or free as in speech. You pay for it in many ways, most importantly $$$ and lack of control.
#2 Why would you want to do something stupid like play sound 'through' the RD connection? Wouldn't it be better to just download the mp3, and play it locally? Both quality and network resources?
#3 Last I checked, RD doesn't support anything other than windows. And only new versions at that. VNC supports everything except OS/2 and Atari TOS. Not that most of the platforms really matter to most people, but there are at least others that might, linux (or some other unix) and MacOS. ANd hell, those people that can't afford to crank out $200 for a M$ bugfix (I won't bother to continue the new version charade).
#4 There may come a time when you would need to drive that Yugo. You won't be able to. And you might change your mind, want a Lambhourghini later on? Too bad again, not allowed.
#5 Restrictions such as the "no-Yugo" clause are specifically forbidden by law, even more so when practiced by a monopoly.
#6 Tightly integrated into the OS? As in illegal bundling of seperate products to destroy or dominate a new market?
#7 VNC has flaws. You're welcome to fix them, or if too lazy, at least point them out in a constructive manner that might inspire others to fix them.
#8 Need mulitple passwords? PAMize the server, and have it authenticate to an OpenLDAP server. I did.
#9 It's not that simple. You're just apparently simple-minded.
I don't think MS is trying to control people's use of VNC or other products. There's just no evidence of that. Let me put it this way, what kind of competition is MS really getting from that? They have PC Anywhere and VNC. The problem with both of these programs is that they leave an OS available to be controlled, if proper steps are not taken. I saw the Discovery channel about how a net-security company tested a company's network (they were hired to do this...) and found ways in using both PC Anywhere and VNC. The network admin wasn't taking apprproiate steps to protect access to those machines.
I think what is going on there is that people tried to blame MS when they got their computer broken into by Back Orifice or a similar program and this is MS's way of saying "we're not responsible for your loss of data unless it was a vulnerability in our own software." Although that license does appear to prohibit use of these products, I doubt MS'll audit a company and punish them for it. If you go to Symantec's site, they have an 'XP Compatibility' blurb showing off how they worked with MS to launch AntiVirus with XP. If you stroll on over to the PC Anywhere section of their site, it very specifically mentions XP as one of the OS's it supports. I seriously doubt that they'd be selling that product if it'd hurt their relationship with MS.
I wouldn't jump to the conlcusion that MS is trying to maintain a monopoly every step it takes , particulary with the Gov't breathing down their necks. It's cool to hate Microsoft, but assuming everything they do is evil doesn't help anybody.
"Derp de derp."
I've been wondering about these licenses. In particular, I was wonder about the case where I purchase a PC from some big brand name store. There store already has installed the OS(Windows XP). I buy the PC, and without ever clicking on "I Agree" button, I use the PC.
Who has agreed to this license agreement? Me or the store?
I suggest you read the license agreement before accusing people of "FUD". VNC is ruled out by it.
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.
Yes, Microsoft doesn't want that, and that seems unreasonable to me. After all, there are plenty of alternatives to Microsoft without such restrictions. If its technical shortcomings and Microsoft's illegal practices weren't enough, this is yet another reason to dump Windows.
What's next, a ban on using any OS other than XP in a machine that XP is installed on? I could see it happening.
"Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
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."
I tend to avoid the use of M$ software in the whole (Minus office) due to the horrible code they always put out. They tend to rush the release of a product, having to patch together updates one flaw at a time. Its the product of sloppy programing, and its like clockwork. I could set my watch to M$ because it manages to release patches to everything every 5 minutes. If the remote desktop is anything like IIS, I wouldn't trust anything to it. Another thing is that this is DIRECT control of your desktop, not some little obscure hole that will allow somebody to browse your hard drive. We're talking about your documents, all your data, everything. VNC has been around for years, gone through release after release. Remote Desktop is untested and untried. And the fact that its from Microsoft makes it even worse. I don't care what anybody says, I'm sticking with my tried and true software...
eh, food for thought...
The bold text implies that a Windows 98 license would be required, for example, on the BSD machine running a BSD client connecting to a Windows 98 desktop.
The Windows 2000 EULA is more blunt:
Good thing that except for those unfortunates who live in UCITA states, these clauses are likely to mean dick.
- The program crashing
- Alt-tab simply not working
- Being unable to return to the program
- Finding the program no longe working properly/at all when it switches back
Yep, that sounds very useful doesn't it? Sometimes it works, but in my experience, with the programs I use, it fails often enough to be useless.Code signing will put us halfway there - not that it's necessarily 100% bad to require binaries to be licensed.
Hands in my pocket
I'm pretty sure XP launched in late October of last year.
As for the EULA: Have you ever tried reading through one of those? I've seen a MS EULA make a laywer's head spin (anecdotal: My company does quite a lot of business with law firms, and I asked a lawyer at one of them once to actually interprit their EULA for (I think it was) Win98). It's entirely possible that the prohibition would be cloaked in so much obscure legal verbage that even after a year, it wouldn't be immediately... well, obvious.
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 $30, while a windows xp pro license is like 200.
I bet this sort of licensing restriction is illegal. I'm sure that IBM and Unisys had similar lines in their EULA's 20 years ago with mainframe systems to force companies to purchase expensive green screen terminals. Today people routinely connect with IBM 3270 emulators without any legal hassles.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Yeah, I know BO isn't the most legit "administrative tool". I'm just pointing out that the cDc claimed it to be. They were riding a wave of publicity surrounding it, and claimed it was legit. The cDc was a highly visible organization, they could very easily be held liable (like a virus author might) if it was deemed something purely for malicious use.
MS specifically disallowing it in the EULA gives them legal rights even if the tool is claimed to be for legitimate use.
Hey, it worked, didn't it?
i hate pansy republicans
Could you kindly point me to the FreeBSD version? No FreeBSD version? OK, how about a version for Solaris? None? So, what else does it run on besides Microsoft?
www.rdesktop.org
While that may be true about MSFT lawyers, it may not be true about the lawyers at a company deploying Windows XP. More and more companies are being frightened by efforts like BSA, and while some might be switching over to free (as in no draconian licensing) software, most are just setting up more rigid internal procedures, including strict interpretations of EULAs. In other words, if you install VNC on a Windows XP box, while you might have nothing to fear from MSFT, you could get fired.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
So if I install Apache on an XP machine and you browse it from anything other than XP, isn't that accessing other executable software?
'nuff said...
On the other hand, if you really think about it, the whole of Western society is just a big joke. But that only makes sense in connection to M$.
--
If you moderate this, then your children will be next.
If only the "casual user" would get on board...
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
I think there's a greater problem as VNC, because VNC is free. What about all this people that bought Citrix clients. They also access and control Windows desktop with non-Microsoft product. I can't imagine that Citrix reseller would tell you that even though you've purchased a valid license, you've still got to buy access client from Microsoft too.
Story reminds me on time when I needed to purchase Terminal server. With all the licenses needed (you need WinNT + client licenses + terminal server, but funny is that client side is even more expensive because every client needs Win98 license + WinNT full license + Terminal server access license) I just smiled my self and felt quite happy about my decision to move bussines to Linux.
I don't know, but that makes accessing WinXP trough SSH illegal too. But where is some Microsoft WinXP SSH client.
It might came a bit out off topic, but story reminds me on Windows license stickers, that must be sticked on every computer that you sell Windows with. I sell only well designed and expensive cases (otherwise I rather avoid that job), this could break their level of class. It's like some Ferrari reseller would put a sticker on the car he just sold, but to get back. There has come to dispue about this topic and dispute was over the moment I asked for damage covering. You can't sell classy PC case with stickers on it. This just isn't way to do bussines, it's more like cow branding to which ranch do they belong.
Now in these days of XP licensing, I can't say I haven't expected something like that. Nobody can say that without a lie, even the toughest Microsoft fans.
To get a little more out off topic (but with a point again). Interesting is how they protect their rights. And what kind of material do they use to lower quality of other products. Recentlly I recived two CD-s for Windows 2000 resellers "How to compete with Linux environment". I don't think that I've ever read this many "bullshit" in my life as I've reada in that material. Just to cover some points (Comparing Win2000AdvSrv with Redhat 6.0, while document is dated late 2001, Linux has no 1000Mbit eth support, Linux has no VPN support, Linux has no PPP dialer, etc, while other file (dated few days in difference) comparing Samba with Win2000 says that weak point of Samba 2.2 is that it doesn't come preinstalled on releases prior to 7.2, so you must set it up on your own...).
This (sad) reality (unfortunatelly) shows how over protective (no body count and no regrets) thay are. It seems like they'll soon lack of new enemies and they want their customers to become ones. Now with that legal issue about remote control, they've just made competition alias Citrix harder job to copete with their solutions. It wouldn't surprise me if the next step would be selling licenses for use of non-Microsoft software. As how this software is not confirmed by Microsoft and they've got to approve it so this license would be just covering their expenses to test that software. It's long since they've shown that they're interested in money and not in users benefits.
I know the last claim is off course missed one. But as current events are evolving... Who knows
bout the article let's just say "Predictable and not impresssive anymore"
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
"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."
True enough. But if you read the license, it says that the client computer needs XP also. So anybody using XP to talk to XP should be safe. That very well could be a 'use XP or use nothing' license, but I seriously doubt they'd use remote computing to try to leverage that. That's such an uncommon practice. I mean seriously, who would they bust on it?
"Derp de derp."
(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
I don't know any business that actually uses XP, every corporation I know uses 2000 and doesn't plan on upgrading any time soon...
I think the REAL reason MS is trying to block this sort of use is because of the new prevalence of multiprocessor machines in the marketplace. I think Microsoft is worried about people running their OS on a single processor, while a less expensive and more advanced OS (not necessarily Linux) handles the entire machine. People would be able to run their favorite Windows applications under this new OS while getting used to it; then, once the software companies get an idea where the wind is blowing and port their apps to the new system, Windows can be dispensed with.
I don't have a problem with signed code, as long as:
If the process didn't meet these criteria, I wouldn't want anything to do with it.
That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
That's something I really agree. Two of my (proffesional (intended mispeeling)) friends tryed to install it. No one was comfortable to use Linux, both were too proud to read man, ask or look information on Internet. They just haven't get it. On the other side. I gave Linux to few of my friends that were not professionals, most of them felt quite well at home. I guess moving to Linux is just connected with size of brain (more he (only) thinks he has, lesser is a chance to move).
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
So does this mean that the open source tool RDesktop IS legal to use with XP while VNC is not? Hmmmm.
good point. these non-stories really suck...
here is an idea: if you dont like the XP license you cannot legally use the software you have to read and agree to the license to use the software. if you dont like XP, microsoft, or windows, dont use the software. anyone with MS software on their machine who is anti-MS, is a hypocrite!!
if you dislike MS, and you buy and agree to the windows license, you are a hypocritical fuckhead! I'm sick of these whiners! EITHER YOU USE MS OR YOU DONT.
They are NOT a monopoly! BELL WAS A FUCKING MONOPOLY! YOU HAD NO CHOICE!
This is not a monopoly. The best way to show microsoft you dont like their license is to NOT BUY PRODUCTS THAT COME WITH IT OR XP ITSELF!!
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.
mod the parent up more..
Palm and WinCE devices qualify, depending on how liberally you want to read this. The synchronization of data with a desktop is compromised by such a narrow license.
Just more anti-competitive FUD. I swear, if the day ever comes where Linux is crippled by new laws and DMCA, I will never go back to M$ Windoze.
I know a lot of us are saying that we read this wrong, but still, this is poor. They put stuff like that in their EULA at the same time they're trying to prove in court that they're not using their monopoly to force us to buy other products.
anybody else getting ill by reading this?
whoa..
"what are we going to do tonight, redmond?"
"same thing we do every night, EULA, try to take over the world"
thanks all -
- blake
they are yours to do with as you please unless you were specificially forbidden from doing it by the license of the creator
Wrong. That's not how copyright works. When a bitmap is created (for instance the foot icon of gnome), it is automatically copyrighted. Without permission from the copyright holder, you do not have permission to copy that work. Copyright law is not opt-in. In the absence of a license to copy, you have no right to copy.
Since the screenshot isn't of the GNOME source, it's not covered by the GPL.
The screenshot contains copyrighted icons. If those icons are not covered by the GPL, then you have no right to copy them.
The GPL only mandates that you release source to people whom you have given binaries, and that only if they requested it
Wrong. "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License". The GPL does not expressly allow you to copy bitmaps, so you are not specifically forbidden from copying them.
If you do not release the source, you must "Accompany [the derivitive work] with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code" [empasis mine].
i don't understand whow this post was modded up to 4 as being informative. NanoGator has obviously never heard of Windows terminal server, why else would he propose someone use an XP box as a terminal server, when you sould just install teminal services on a Win2K box?
C'mon folks. just because it's a story about yet another Micrsoft license restriction doesn't mean you can't pull yer heads out of yer asses!
There are 01 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary, and me.
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.
If you use Back Orifice, or netbus or any of the other fake hacker tools like that, is it the attacker or the victim that has to pay for the extra license or be scared of the M$ SWAT team?
"The secret of success is to know something nobody else knows." -Aristotle Onassis
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.
I guess this is what happens when you don't actually own the software on your computer
That would tend to imply, to me (and mostly likely to a lawyer as well), that in order to access any applications running on an XP box remotely, the remote 'client' would (1) have to be XP, and (2) would have to have licenses for each of the applications to be run. I don't know about you, but when I've used VNC to remotely access Windows boxes, it's been because I couldn't run the application in question on my current machine (ie: my client was Solaris, or Linux, or even a Palm Pilot).
Now as for the Microsoft interpretation? I would assume an interpretation consistent with my 24 years of using Microsoft software -- the worst case.
We call it art because we have names for the things we understand.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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-
If Microsoft can present an EULA to me, after I purchase their software, then I can give them an EOLA - End Ownder License Agreement
1. This EOLA supercedes all previous EULAs.
2. This EOLA give all rights to this computer to the owner of this computer.
3. This EOLA gives the owner of this computer the right to do any damn thing he/she wants to with it.
4. This EOLA can be changed at whim by the owner of this computer.
5. By letting your software install on the owners computer, you agree to all the terms of this EOLA.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
>wow, and heer i thot it wuz EmEss yoozerz hoo
>wur the dummest shitz on the freekin plannit
You misspelled "Emacs" (along with the rest of the words).
-l
what if I have a KVM switch which has a digital access method? .. this techically falls under this agreemnt, but it's a COMPLETEY seperate system... it's like saying "this broadcast may only be viewed on sony approved televisions. if you are using another television, turn off now"
For those of you not familiar with rdesktop, it's free software that allows you to connect up to a Windows server running Terminal Services. I routinely use it to administer my Windows servers from my Linux desktop at work. Check it out at:
rdesktop
After the explanation of several highly modded comments gave a very clear cut breakdown of what was being said in the EULA, the only question is:
"Are they really just saying; 'the network is the computer'"?
Moose
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Doesn't this kinda make you think of their new Mira device that is on it's way out. Perhaps they were thinking ahead. Since it will of course provide this sort of functionality but will no doubt be "licensed" to do so. Lock out or attempt to discourage third party manufacturers/developers of similar devices unless they pay the Microsoft tax. I dunno maybe not. ~timewash
- "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."
(All your emphasis belong to me) It's not that you have to use WTS. It's that you must have a client license on the remote machine.Windows Licensing: turning an industry to Linux since 1996.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
The intent is to prevent you from running programs on XP or using the XP UI unless you have a license for each workstation. This means you can't use multiple WinTerms or Linux boxes scattered around your house to access your one licensed XP PC in the den, or even back at your office.
Just because you paid for it, and just because you are the only person using it doesn't mean you get to use it however you want. You only get to use XP if you're physically sitting at the PC to which it is licensed. In short, Microsoft won't let you enjoy that super-fantabulous XP experience on all your Linux boxen unless you buy a copy of XP for each one.
Before this is over, Microsoft will buy enough congressmen to get a law requiring that every microprocessor chip sold be bundled with a MS Windows license. It will become the CPU tax, just like the recording industry's tax on blank media. After all, you could use that CPU to pirate Windows, so that proves you are a thief.
I've included a bigger piece of the XP Pro license below to show what they were trying to do. You can see the 10-connection limit and that connections can only be made to MS-approved services (IIS, MS "File and Print Services", "remote access", and not much more). Note the important use of the proper name for File and Print services. One interpretation could be that it's against the XP license to run Apache or any custom-written app that might listen on a socket and send a response. You can't even have a time server!
..." only makes sense if you also allow the things mentioned in the first half. After all, any use of File&Print or IIS will "use...executable software residing on the Workstation" right?
What "remote access" encompasses isn't completely spelled out. I don't see why VNC wouldn't count as "remote access" though. The last half about "Except as otherwise permitted by the NetMeeting
IANAL etc. Here's the license clause:
Installation and use. You may install, use, access,
display and run one copy of the Product on a single
computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device
("Workstation Computer"). The Product may not be used
by more than two (2) processors at any one time on any
single Workstation Computer. You may permit a maximum
of ten (10) computers or other electronic devices (each
a "Device") to connect to the Workstation Computer to
utilize the services of the Product solely for File and
Print services, Internet Information Services, and remote
access (including connection sharing and telephony
services). The ten connection maximum includes any
indirect connections made through "multiplexing" or other
software or hardware which pools or aggregates
connections. 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.
But what does Microsoft have to say about it? Nowhere does the article mention anything about trying to contact Microsoft for a statement on the matter. I guess that would violate the rules of good Infoworld journalism.
Java is the blue pill
Choose the red pill
I haven't seen anyone else mention this, so here it is:
...features described below".
What about Microsoft's own PWS (Personal Web Server)?
According to the article: "you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display, or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer...". Wouldn't this include web servers? I don't know if it's possible to run a full blown instance of IIS on WinXP, or why anyone would want to, but Microsoft advocates, and even recommends the installation of PWS when FrontPage is installed.
Say you had a CGI script or Java applet within the site served by PWS...Wouldn't that be considered running "other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer?
I don't use XP, and don't have it's EULA to check. Maybe someone can confirm this by posting exactly what is "permitted by the
"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." -William Blum
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.
Microsoft might have just pissed off one company stronger then them.
VNC has been created in AT&T labs.
Well, at least this will be one more company that could testify at the monopoly lawsuit against MS.
What if you had yourbackl wend on an XP machine and you front end running on *nix. Does "Access" include passing data back and forth. would the connection need to be initiated from the XP box to get aroung the restriction? Does this mak it a contract violation if I make hardware & software that sounds an alarm if a sensor is tripped? (does the hardware count as a device? why/ why not) This is one odd and f'd up clause.
I rue the day when my keyboard and mouse will need seprate licences of XP?
Information wants to be free like speech wants to be free, not like we want beer to be free.
If IE's Windows integration is a monopoly, then I'm all for the removal of Konqueror from KDE.
im guessing you are a troll just because of your sig. that or you have absolutely no understanding of why microsofts behavior is illegial. in case you are not a troll, here is the short version:
microsoft has a monopoly on operating systems. therefore, according to antitrust laws, it is illegial for them to use that monopoly to force out customers in other markets - i.e. browsers. so tying the browser to the operating system is illegial because they have an operating system monopoly.
kde, however, does not have a monopoly (expect perhaps on annoying slow windowing systems - and i bet microsoft has something designed to take that market back too). therefore, they can legally tie anything they want into their desktop environment.
no rdp 5.1 support
so no sound, and nothing above 8 bit colour.
Heh talk about Karma roller coaster. Somebody actually tried to get my post modded down. I guess it worked because somebody modded me down as a troll. Can you believe that? I provide an alternative point of view, and I'm a troll?
I'd like to thank Drunken_Jackass for bringing nothing to this discussion. I never said it wasn't possible to do so (although I don't think Terminal Services quite works that way, but that's a seperate discussion...) today. I said that MS doesn't want people to use one license of their OS with 25 people using it. That's what 2000 Enterprise Edition 25-licenses is for. I would like to thank Drunken Jackass for oversimplifying my point and getting me modded down.
My point still stands, and my feelings aren't hurt by being modded down. If my point is overrated or irrelevant, that's fine. It'd be nice if I were being modded appropriately, though.
"Is this possible? With XP can multiple users run multiple programs at the same time in a usable manner? Sure you can start up office; start typing a letter, leave office running and log in as a different user without shutting down office, but can two users log in and run it at the same time without interfering with each other. When I run PC Anywhere on my win98 box; i can't connect more than once; the two users would interfere with each other. Does XP resolve this??? excuse my ignorance; but I haven't seen XP yet (nor do I intend to)"
XP doesn't resolve this without the client/host software being modified. However, the ability to run seperate programs as seperate users means that the hard part is already done. We're not talking about multiple instances of the same program, we're talking about multiple instances with different users. Office thrives on different users.
So the answer is "no, not yet. But it woudln't be that hard."
"Derp de derp."
"Looks like the monopoly muscles are flexing."
I'm pretty sure I didn't read anything in the article about Microsoft actually enforcing this.
I'm pretty sure it's just one of those things that happens when you have 20 bazillion lawyers all gathered around writting a license agreement.
It's a lot similar to a California law of Animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship. Whacky law link.
Why is it similar? Because it's just a stupid thing that a bunch of lawyers or whatever had written up without really thinking about it.
I expect that by the time you see Microsoft actually enforcing this, you'll most likely see two rabbits being hauled off by the LAPD for getting jiggy with it near church.
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
What do they have to say about this... I know PC Anywhere 10.1 is "XP Complient" ... and all of that. I think this is being taken out of context
"We shall show mercy, but we shall not ask for it" -- Winston Churchill
Seriously I do not know what the problem is.
Simply do not use the product.
All that is really happening is MS is creating
and changing the rules as they go along, with
their product. and doing so in order to serve
them and only them.
It's not like there isn't other options and possibilities.
Free software (as defined by FSF) can beat anything MS does
in constraint, by simply doing it better witout such false
constraints.
If anything this should be inspiration to do better with
Free Software, where there is no inherent motive to create
such false (not constrained by natural physical law)
constraints. As such the Free Software will be more powerful
and productive.
Don't argue about it, just do it and prove it.
Key term "the Hurd"
The most amusing part is that XP has been available for some time now and someone finally noticed this clause.
It makes me wonder what else is floating around in there.
The List of Grievances with Slashdot.
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.
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.
>This is like saying you own a Ferrari and a Yugo but Ferrari says you can't drive the Yugo if you want to drive the Ferrari. I don't see a problem there.
You don't park downtown much, do you?
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
They're not totally prohibiting it. However, they're expecting you to buy a SECOND license just to run the machine remotely with third-party software. If the third party software was something that allowed multiple sessions, instead of just allowing remote control of the active user's desktop, that would almost make sense. But the fact is that the machine in question is still only being used by a single person, and it's totally clear to everyone including Billy G. and Stevie B. that this is double dipping. It's time to teach the schoolyard bully a lesson.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
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.
This restriction is to make illegal the use of products such as rdesktop (http://www.rdesktop.org) not VNC. Although it reads that you would need 'the Product' Windows XP Pro on the dekstop that is accessing the host. Windows Termial Services is included in W2K server and is used in WinXP for Remote Desktop. In W2K TS each client must either be a Windows 2000 Pro or Windows XP Pro desktop or have a separate W2K TS Client Access License. And if you haven't guessed a W2K TS CAL costs about as much as a desktop license so you pay the MS tax either way. This is to prevent free Unix desktops running essential Windows applications that they cannot find functional alternatives on the Unix platform and hence continue the hegemony. Cheers VikingBrad
I suspect so since the licence terms seem to imply that any system you access an XP system from must have either a XP or 2000 licence. Of course this would mean you couldn't access a XP system using Microsoft's own RDP client for WinCE.
For those of you who don't know RDesktop is a nifty little open source RDP (Terminal Services) client for UNIX.
Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
The portion of the license quoted in the article leads me to believe that it may be necessary to purchase a separate license for each of these "devices." These MS guys are even sneakier than I thought!
OK. Maybe there's something in the context of this quote that says it applies to "remote" devices. I don't run XP, so I don't have a copy of the license handy.
Just a thought. :-)
Guns don't kill people -- people kill people.
But the guns seem to help a bit. (apologies to Eddie Izzard)
Which part of the anatomy are they interested in?
Infuriate left and right
>Therefore you cannot use VNC with Gnome (for example) without sending the source code of Gnome (or a written offer) to the receiving computer.
.bmp is not a program by any sane programmer's definition, and therefore doesn't count.
Oh please. Read the GPL and notice the clause (5 to be exact) that lets you continue to use the GPL software without agreeing to the terms of the GPL. Read it. Its there.
If you don't agree to the GPL you can continue to use the software with the usual copyright restrictions: Not to copy it to others, Not to put your name on it. Very simple, really.
So where were we? Oh yeah, you can't use VNC because GNOME is GPL. Well, then simply choose not the accept the GPL license and (according to your interpretation) your rights are "restored".
I could understand this misunderstanding if the GPL was wrapped up in legalese like most MS licences, but it isn't. It's an easy read for most adults.
And before you suggest that the bitmap is a derived work, you're right. But the license clearly says Program, not derivative work. A
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Does this mean that companies that offer downloads of binaries can't use WinXP for their web servers? After all, that would allow unlicensed users to both "access" and "run" (via the "open the file from this location" option in download dialogs) "executable software residing on the Workstation Computer".
Sounds like MS doesn't want the web anymore.
-BK
Chemical Blog
...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
That's nonsense. VNC does not allow you to "setup a Windows box and have 50 Linux desktops connect to it"--VNC doesn't magically transform a single user Windows machine into a multiuser machine.
It doesn't have to turn it into a TIME-SHARING multiuser machine to turn it into a multiuser machine. One user at a time is QUITE enough to put a big scare into Microsoft.
You see, they want you to buy a license for EVERY desktop on your site. If you're trying to convert a company from Windows to Something Else, you'll have a period - possibly forever - where there are still a few Windows-only apps that your people need to run occasionally. A small number of servers that can be remote-accessed from NON-Windows machines can server a large number of occasional users.
So Microsoft modifies the ELUA so you have to have a Windows license for, and be running Windows on, every machine where you access the Windows server.
See?
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.)
Here's a GREAT way to LEGALLY get by ANY EULA:
Send a REGISTERED letter to MS with YOUR statement disallowing ALL EULAs in their entirety, and enclose INSIDE that letter; the line about: *The opening, reading and transferring to another, this letter and its contents, you hereby DISOLVE FOREVER, all licenses, EULAs, CALs and ALL restrictive licensing practices of Microsoft, it's B.O.D, chairman, and C.O.O from forever attempting to force, by license, agreement, click-through, hidden or subjective or by any and all currently known efforts of control, either locally, remotely or by lawyer forever restrained from contact with myself, organization, business, partners or any person or persons even remotely associated with me. You hereby agree to hold harmless forever, any claims of loss of profits, damages or suits of tort against (insert your name here) from attempting to coerce any financial gain, whether by direct or indirect contact or contacts, for the life of the above named person, party or individual.
This agreement supercedes any and all contracts and previous licenses for the duration of the life of(insert your name here)and shall be legally binding upon you the moment this letter is opened and read. The contents of this letter is copyrighted and protected by federal law. Disclosure to any person or persons outside of Microsoft shall constitute a violation of the D.M.C.A and D.R.M as prescribed under federal statute/s for the protection of copyrighted material.
206.39.38.2, DDN-BLK-36, DOD NET INFO CENTER. 800.365.3642 206.36.0.0-206.39.255.255 NET RANGE.
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.
My comments about Terminal Services client being superior to VNC were intended to be limited in scope to the administration of Windows boxes. You get much better responses when using RDS then VNC on low or high bandwidth connections. That said, I love VNC because servers and clients exist on so many platforms and I regularly use it for a remote desktop to my Linux box. But, if I'm going to admin a Windows box -- I'll take the terminal services in a heartbeat.
Evolution: love it or leave it
Notice that last part, where they prohibit running the windows user interface remotely on a machine that is NOT licensed for windows. Replace windows with the same edition of Windows XP. The Product means the Windows XP and whould exclude all other versions of Windows, even any future version of Windows. Even using any future MS remote control software named differend then NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop whould be a violation of the license. I think you're right about the intentions, but if I can't 'use ... the Product...' on a device that doesn't have a separate license for the product, how about using parts of the product?
What about using a file share from a win98 box, that whould be 'using the product'. And setting up a proxy that does autodial for a tree computer home network would be 'running executable software residing on the Workstation Computer' That would even go for a shared printer, sending a print job would be running executable software, and whould thus have to come from another XP box, or it whould be violating the license.
I think this clause excludes about everything that a simple home user with more the one computer whould want to do. Surely that wasn't MS intention, but it's what i read here.
No big deal for me, I won't use XP anyway...
This has been reported ever since WinXP license was released. I myself saw this problem in XP license.
But who cares? I installed VNC on XP anyway and it works great (never could make the original "remote control" work because it needs another XP system).
Make even shorter URLs - 8LN.org
rDesktop
GPL'd, works on Linux, *BSD, even solaris. Connects fine to XP, 2k, NT4.
HOBLinkJWT
Java based TS client. Works fine against XP, 2K, NT4, from many oses.
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."
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
They won't dare fight you on this, because if they win, it would basically invalidate the whole EULA concept: if a click can be considered to be agreement, so can a signature for a certified letter...
Say no to software patents.
So, are you agreeing or disagreeing with the story?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
I wondered about that in my above post, mentioning Apache, then later I thought about database software, e.g., Oracle, Sybase, MySQL, PostgreSQL.
Perhaps MS will soon start charging licenses for xtra players on their xbox over and above the cost .. err Xbox at a time.
of a new controller as its a way of more than one
person to use that cheap PC
SMS used to have a desktop control feature too. SMS 2.0 was supposed to have support for 2000 and XP. Actually, I'm remembering all my nightmares abuot working with SMS. This could be a good thing, now that I think about it SMS should be illegal.
*Not a Sermon, Just a Thought
*/
I sent this via their web form this morning. If they don't post their response here, I will.
Could you address the following posting on Slashdot, regarding the Windows XP license and what this means in terms of using your product legally on Windows XP? This is especially an issue for those of us that use Macintosh computers to connect to other TB2 boexs on our network (like here). While XP has only just begun to enter my shop, it will. I want to know if this is an issue. (If it is, you should sick your lawyers on them, since they're forcing you and Symantec out of this market.)
I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by
When will the goverement get a clue? Lets drop the case, good idea!
I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!
Mike
This clause of the Windows license isn't new, I don't think. It appeared a few years ago, as I recall, when Windows 98 was released. It happened to coincide with Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server Edition coming out.
I'm just saying.
Read my sig if you like, but I'll never see yours, thanks to Discussions, Viewing, Disable sigs...
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.
This text is going in an email to them, although it won't do much as they never reply. Well, I happen to have a few questions. 1) Why is Print Screen coded? We can DISPLAY the XP desktop of someone remotely...even if it's not updated multiple times a second. 2) Telnet and network sharing...you can share resources with a network, and control the computer with the telnet server (if it's still in, I went back to 2000 a few days ago). They aren't listed in the programs which are allowed. 3) If you go the the XP homepage, there are some movies about XP, which I assume have displays of a Windows XP desktop. I'm on a p150 laptop with Linux, so I can't view them right now, but my guess is that Microsoft is violating it's own license.
I may not use a keyboard with XP.
It really doesn't matter what the salesman says, it really only matter how the judge interprets it. In most cases it wont get to a judge, just the threat of making a company look like it is stealing will change behavior.
Joe
Joe Batt Solid Design
to install a patch. you should really have this scripted or something. i have a nightly script all of the workstations run which upgrades the generic stuff. do they actually pay you to login to each machine and apply a patch? you should script it so you can still get paid and you could do useful stuff while the script is running.
-- john
Yes, but Windows is no longer an operating system if it ever was. Personally I have always thought of it as more of a cartoon show. MS has injected loads of application DNA into the OS kernal and associated libs making it a kind of transgenic monstrosity -- a new thing neither OS nor app, (or app suite). The legal prohibition in the license is a perfectly logical adjunct to the technical/engineering campaign to absorb all applications into the "operating system" thereby locking out anything not MS.
"Obtuse Anger is that which is greater than Right Anger" - Lewis Carroll
EULA's are largely a crock.
Just because something is stated in the license, it doesn't necessarily follow that the restraint is legal. It is generally accepted that a vendor may not constrain how a purchased product is used. For example, GM can't tell you not modify your vehicle. They also can't compell you to use only a GM dealer for service. Depending on the modification, they may void parts of your warranty but even then, they can't void your paint warranty because you reprogrammed the valve-timing.
Software vendors are notorious for putting unreasonable restrictions in their licenses and at the same time unreasonably disclaiming any responsibility or culpability. I'll be glad when the industry matures past this sad state of affairs.
So when will the license you get when you buy a car say 'You can't allow certain people to drive your car.' or "You are not allowed to install a different cd player." or, or, and don't forget about.
I picked up this program after someone mentioned it her on /. It is the best program, I've seen in quite a while. It is just such an elegant solution.
It's simple to set up, easy as cake to use, has a small footprint, is very flexible in terms of platforms supproted, and best of all it's FREE.
Sure pcAnywhere is good, but it costs and isnt as easy to setup.
Never tried RDP, and it may be faster, but VNC is perfectly adequate for my purposes.
I see this EULA provision as just another reason not to upgrade my w2k boxs to XP. And someday i'll be switching to FreeBSD for good if this kind of stuff keeps coming down the pipe.
-"The early bird catches the worm, but the late bird sleeps the most"
And it makes GnomeMeeting [gnomemeeting.org] illegal too (unless I could use another XP licence for that)
Does GnomeMeeting have remote control features now? last I checked it was strictly video voice and limited text chatting.
I think you mean EULA (yoo-lah), not ELUA (e-loo?).
I think it would make a great protest T-shirt: "End License User Agreements Now!"
you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display, or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer
When I connect to a windows machine running a webserver, which calls a CGI, my computer with a browser is a device which accesses and runs executable software residing on the Workstation Computer
Is this just an XP Workstation vs XP Server license issue? Can anybody confirm if this clause is in the server version?
Allowing someone to pinging your workstation is probably illegal too. Better buy M$ Firewall XP so you don't have to buy an XP license for each user who's ever pinged your machine when the next audit comes around.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
the flamage here has been pretty absurd. I don't think for a moment that MS would (for example) sue the guy who uses VNC to administer 300 Windows desktops, as long as he had a license for each of them. This is just dumb. VNC is a nifty app but so slow and primitive as to be nearly useless for any other task; a Windows box with VNC is still only usable by one person at a time.
I don't think rdesktop is in trouble either; fundamentally, though they'd rather people use Windows clients as well, they don't care if you use Linux on the other end. HOWEVER, you must have a separate license; this is pretty standard. Even a lot of Unix apps (commercial ones) require a separate license for each concurrent use. Thus, you can't (for instance) have an XP box in the server room that everyone connects to so they can run IE on their *nix machines, unless you buy XP licenses for each client as well. I don't have any problem with that provision; it doesn't seem fair to get around buying a site license by letting everyone connect remotely and use a single copy. I think people in this situation should just do the obvious and NOT BUY MS PRODUCTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
The clause in question here is rather poorly written, I'm afraid, so I can't really tell how brain-dead it is. Here's a bigger question: if you run XP on a machine with MetaFrame installed so you can use Office, do you need both XP and Office licenses for clients? I know very little about RDP; is it like X, or does it export the entire desktop? If the latter, I can see why you'd need separate XP licenses too. This, then, is pretty absurd, and quite close to the IBM/Unisys EULAs you describe.
When you buy Windows Terminal server and Citrix and run MS Office from your server room, you don't just need to buy one license. You need to buy one copy of the OS and one copy of MS Office for each thin client. Even if they are running Linux native, with the Linux Citrix client.
The same goes for when you use VNC to run a copy of Word. You are supposed to have a copy of the OS and the application license to use it.
At least that's my interpretation. Of course IANAL. But I think the goal is to pay for a MS OS license even though you use another OS. It becomes much harder to justify Linux on cost alone with that.
The original market for stuff like Citrix WinView and WinFrame was where people really were remote; they were at their house connecting with a modem or at a satellite office connected to HQ via a leased line or whatever, and they needed some way to run applications that use a lot of network bandwidth (e.g. database stuff) with decent performance in spite of having a slow pipe. So you take the X11 type approach, and run the app on a machine with a fast pipe, and just use the slow pipe for the user interface.
I set up a few such beasties for clients and they were happy. Then I heard that Microsoft was doing "the Borg thing" to kill Citrix, and I couldn't figure it out at first. Why? It's not like there was some MS-only alternative where MS would make more money (except on the app server software) and even WinFrame itself only ran on NT (unlike WinView, which was Citrix was phasing out anyway), so Microsoft still got to, as Don Fanucci might say, "wet their beak." It didn't make sense to me at first. But, as usual, I was being naive and assuming the Microsoft just wanted money, when really their motivations were more sinister. Well, maybe that's going too far.. it's just that Microsoft people were really thinking about long-term consequences.
The reason WinFrame and VNC and PCAnywhere need to be killed, is that there's too much potential for non-Microsoft clients (well, it's more than merely potential, in the case of VNC). This is important, because there are very few reasons that a user actually needs to use Microsoft Windows -- it's usually just a few key apps that the users are locked into. Users could use things like WinFrame or VNC even when there isn't a slow pipe. You can have a whole office using a single app server for their Microsoft legacy stuff (it's not like MS Word is CPU-bound; a single box could service a lot of users), and then the users can run whatever platform they damn well want to. Thus, any remote access product that uses an open protocol, is potentially a migration tool and a threat to Windows lock-in.
WinFrame ISA protocol was never opened, but they did apparently license it. In the mid-late 90s we had some users on WinView (an earlier version of WinFrame that ran on OS/2 instead of NT), and I bought a Macintosh program (which I ran under emulation on my Amiga :-) which let me
dial into clients' app servers from home, so I could do some maintenance and
cleanup stuff after hours when users didn't have files open. Cross-platform
paradise! ;-)
VNC is even worse, because it's been ported to everything. It really might be feasible to have a single MS box for legacy stuff, and a whole office full of Macs or Linux boxes. And once users try non-Microsoft stuff, they don't want to go back. From Microsoft's point of view, this stuff really needs to be crushed before it gets popular.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Obvious typo in subject. Grammer flames are unnecessary.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Microsoft wont allow you to blame them anyway if its their fault, so whats the point of banning other remote control programs?
Brielle
Isn't this just the standard case of "If you want to use this system as a server, the client systems need licenses."? It seems like what they've always said in the Client Access License department. They didn't say it was prohibited, only that it required a license.
http://drteknikal.blogspot.com/
And what people seem to be missing here is that last sentence: "...unless the Device has a separate license for the Product.
Which means that as long as you've got an xp license for the linux box that you're running vnc from you can access the xp system however you choose.
No, sir or madam, you are incorrect. The GPL does not apply to your case. In your case (a screenshot that contains Windows widgets), Microsoft holds to copyright to those items, so the GPL does not apply, based on prior art. You could conceivably defend screenshots of said (copyrighted) widgets under fair use, so even Microsoft's copyright can be defended against, but this is tangential to the point, which is that the GPL does not apply to the widgets, so the GPL restriction is immaterial.
Virg
Next time you buy a copy of anything with MS on the label, I encourage you to take your opened software package back to CompUSA, or what have you, and tell the clerk you don't agree with the End User Liscence Agreement. Hell, try this with any software. For extra ammusement try to buy a stack of cd-r media at the time you're making the return.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
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.
What's this VNC buzzword? People have been able to do that and more with M$ platforms freaking forever, see this ancient page, HA HA!. I'm not sure what's really better than a screen capture like that.
All this is just another nail in the M$ coffin. M$'s VNC is good only for getting your machine cracked and peered into by your ISP, M$, and whoever. Why bother when free and technically superior alternatives like SSH and X are available? The DOS command line is a pain in the ass to use, so low bandwith utilization is impossible on that platform. Why oh why do people use this junk?
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
I sure hope so. If all trojans were Microsoft-made, they'd probably be ActiveX-based and thus only work for IE users. What a relief that would be.
You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
uh, oh . .
>Repeating wat they hear, and not looking into why
>or how is one of my biggest pet peeves.
I can't resist. Do you realize what the Platonic relationship is?
It comes from "Symposium," in which, at the symposium (drinking party), the leading citizens of Athens are debating the highest form of love.
After the rest speak, Socrates (Plato's mouthpiece in the dialogs) explains that the highest form of love is for the "lover" to be a middle aged man of property, and for the "beloved" to be a boy just coming into his beard. In modern english: pedophilia.
Somehow, in popular culture, this has been switched around (perhaps because the actual meaning couldn't be brought up in polite culture . . .
This dialog also gives rise to mondern symposia, including the occasional "symposium on alcohol abuse". The opening lines are a discussion on the rules for mixing and drinking the wine that night, with the conclusion that since they were all still hung over from the previous night, each would only drink as much as he desired . .
hawk, who wishes he were making some of this up . . .
Seat belt usage is up to something like 75% here. The manufacturors have wanted to use adjustable airbags for years, but until quite recently,. that's been illegal . . . so they're all set for adult males without belts.
hawk
>to distribute windows OEMs and as such they have
>to pay for windows on every computer they build
This plain and simply isn't true. In fact, one of the terms of the earlier consent decree prohibits this type of license, and this past behavior was part of the $.5B settlment with DRI (or whoever owned CPM-86/DR-DOS/Fred/Novell-DOS that week).
There are specific lines and models for which such licences exist, but it is quite possible to buy a Dell without windows. In fact, I've done it . .
hawk
What if I set up a workstation with remote desktop to a server, then VNC into *that* from 100 other workstations... hmm?
Most comments here are totally crappy & ignorant, it's said to see all those comments missing the point.
It was before XP that MS did not allow running anything remotely so all this Windows XP this-and-that is bullshit.
Check Windows 98 licenses or licenses for Windows 98 applications - it says clearly that any client that has/uses remote access to a Windows 98 box to execute OS or apps on top of it.
Even concurrent licenses don't count - every client that connects must have a license. If you have 10 clients and one Windows 98 with Office and at most three clients remotely run Office at a time, you still must buy 11 licenses (i.e. an additional license for each of the 10 clients).
There should be some rating system to hide moronic postings here, it's hard to find useful information in midst of all the garbage.
I can't see how a Symantec could purchase a license to make pcAnywhere "legal". The clause from the license agreement is broad in its use of "any". No exceptions.
In any case, the person who is breaking the license agreement is the person who owns the computer. It is up to them to not use, or prevent, any remote control of their computer by software other than Microsoft's.
Which presents an interesting possibility. Can Symantec sue MS for restraint of trade. In theory, users read and agree to the conditions of the license agreement. So "everyone" "knows" that you can't use third party remote control software with Windows XP.
Sales of pcAnywhere 10.5 notwithstanding, can Symantec collect damages on every copy of pcAnywhere sold?
So this would negate the usage of Peer/Personal Web Server ... so why even include it?
m.mmm..myyy
I don't see how they put this stuff out there, and then go into courts and say, we are not keeping other people out of the marketplace.
I say balls to all of you still using windows as your primary environment. You buy their products, so deal with it.
So what will happen when M$ comes out with their own anti-virus software???
Microsoft "operating systems" have been plagued by trojans and viruses for decades. Now Microsoft simply outlaws them. You may not remote control XP with Back Orifice and Sub7! That will finally put a rest to those pesky hackers on the Internet.
Would this illegalize my favourite network
management tool, SubSeven?
My Karma isn't excellent, damn it! (And
What about commercial remote control software, such as LapLink, that provide much more functionality than Microsoft's remote console software? Laplink has been around for years. Is LapLink out of the business because Microsoft doesn't want them to compete with Microsoft Remote Desktop?
As for the agrument posed in the licensing agreement;
"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."
From what I can understand, this licensing agreement limits the use of Windows XP to only one monitor/machine. Obviously you can't install Windows XP on other machines without a license, but this seems to say you cannot run any aspect of Windows XP from a remote computer, even though you are the proper owner and sole user of the software. What about using telnet to ping your Windows XP machine? Is that illegal? I would like to see this challenged because I don't know if it is really going to hold up in court. In a sense, Remote Access software, or VNC, lets you view your Windows XP machine using a different monitor. That's all it really is. No one can use the Windows XP box while you are remotely connected to it. There is still only one desktop available for use at any given time.
This seems pretty anti-competitive to me.
Heh Thank you, I think you basically got what I was thinking. (and you expressed it better than I did too...)
It's probably a slap in the face to Microsoft that I can buy a cheap copy of Win2K and put Apache on it to serve as a site. (At least I'm reasonably sure you can do that... not sure if it has a limit to how many connections are supported.) For all we know, this license addition is probably to combat that. Suddenly the value of MS's different OS's are in jeopardy.
They're shooting themselves in the foot, though. My company has a product that would probably violate this license if we were using XP. We have a PocketPC running 802.11 to remotely control a computer. We're not using VNC anymore (finally got our own code), but we were for a while. Their license says we'd have needed XP for the PocketPC (no chance of that.) That would have used Linux instead if it had come to that.
"Derp de derp."
I keep reading "display the Product's user interface" in all these EULAs. So where do screen shots fall? A screen shot is definitely "displaying the Product's user interface." Do I need a XP license to read an XP review on a web page if it includes a screen shot?
We can not excuse these practices, but a bright side is this: Is this going to stop ANYONE from using VNC anyway? I'm sure as hell not stopping. 'Course, I'll stick with Win2k anyway.
Joel
Thank you for contacting Netopia Technical Support
This article does not apply to us. This pertains to a specific remote control application on Windows XP. If you are running Timbuktu Pro v4.5 or higher, this is completely compatible and will work to connect to other Windows systems as well as Mac systems.
I hope this information helps.
Stephanie Sanchez
Netopia Technical Support
Netopia, Making Broadband Work
Netopia Timbuktu NT, Windows, and Mac Software Tech Support
E-MAIL: techsports@netopia.com
WWW:
FTP:
PHONE: 510-814-5000 Mon. - Fri. 6AM-5:30PM Pacific Time
FAX: 510-814-5314
Reference Codes
------------------------
Person#:2346754
Email#:7125306
I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by
Apple is a large comany just like MS. They have exactly the same mission statement as MS and every other large companie out there, "Make more money", anything else they sprout in their mission statement is a means to an end, not the goal.
They currently don't have the clout that MS has in the marketplace so they play a different game. They throw the users a bone occasionally to keep them on side. This does not make them any more trustworthy than MS.
It's not that I don't like Apple (they make some good stuff, mmmm, iPod) it's that this sort of "Apple is a nice company" is crap. They just have better PR than MS for the time being.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
It would seem that this particular part of the lincense (if I'm remembering the section correctly) is also in the Win2k license:
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 display the Product's user interface, unless the Device has a separate license for the Product. Not to say that this isn't a bad thing, but it doesn't really seem to be new. I also find this tidbit interesting: You may permit a maximum of ten (10) computers or other electronic devices (each a "Device")to connect to the Workstation Computer to utilize the services of the Product solely for file and print services, internet information services, and remote access (including connection sharing and telephony services). The ten connection maximum includes any indirect connections made through "multiplexing" or other software or hardware which pools or aggregates connections. So uhhh.... If you can't connect more than 10 computers to your machine, even through "indirect" means... wouldn't that mean it would violate the license to connect to the internet? Certainly you have more indriect connections when you run one of those nify peer2peer filesharing apps....?
Place sig here.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=22833&cid=2458 224
Linux at home
VNC on a windows box only allows you to share out the one existing desktop.
Terminal Server on windows allows you to present multiple, independent, remote desktops.
On unix platforms VNC is more like TS in that you can have multiple desktops exported, but then you can do that with unix anyway - without VNC.
Hi All,
a t.net/projects/rdesktop/
First Off -- I am not a lawyer.
My reading of the licence seems to indicate that you only use approved clients to connect to the native NEtmeeting, Remote Desktop, etc. Service. It is under the heading
"
7. DESCRIPTION OF OTHER RIGHTS AND
LIMITATIONS.
* NetMeeting/Remote Assistance/Remote Desktop Features.
"
this seems to indicate that programs like rdesktop
http://www.rdesktop.org
http://freshme
are verboten. The licence seems to speek only to the those compents. Perhaps it limits the H.323 clients as well. Other than that, I do not think that the licence forbids VNC, PC Anywhere, Etc..
I could be wroung
well, when I use my A-Open 56K modem to connect the via phone to Telus (my isp), I regularly get 40K+ on the connections... (according to my modem, anyways). -- and that's ON TOP of the ADSL signal on the line. (and was in a relatively bad location for ADSL. I rarely got over 2 megabit down, although I almost always got 1/2 megabit up. I was actually near one of those 'holes' where you were too far from the switch center to get ADSL at all).
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
... next time they will forbid too eat McDonalds in front of the display
Happy Germany, we can safely ignore this!
This EULA violates a lot of German laws!
VII. USAGE
...This book may not be reverse-engineered...
that'd be nice.
"Um, Mrs. Johnson, by making us analyze this book you're violating the end-user license agreement!"
[insert witty comment here]
all running digitally, which allows you to connect at that speed.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
Just wanted to let you know that
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
If MS or any other company starts leaning on all makers of services I need and is big enough to get away with it then I have no choice but to take them to court or live with whatever they hand me. Having laws that prevent such business extortion techniques is a damn good thing imho and is certainly not "running to Mama". Laws exists so you have some recourse other than open warfare. What you are saying amounts to claiming MS really did and does nothing wrong. I cannot credit you with enough intelligence to be worth responding to if that is your opinion.
I doubt anyone will even see this, as this article is now "ancient", but I managed to get an official response from Microsoft Legal that answers this question, and pretty much makes sense. Short version - "Essentially the machine running VNC, PC Anywhere, or other software would need an XP license as well." Essentially, if they didn't prohibit it, anyone could use 1 license of something to sponsor 20 remote sessions of users without a license.
From: Eric Ligman
Subject: RE: XP Licensing
I went through this last week and took it up with Corporate. Here is
the response from the Windows XP LCA team:
I've reviewed the article and our Windows XP eula. The article suggests
that using software other than Microsoft's NetMeeting, Remote Desktop,
or Remote Assistance to access Windows XP from another desktop violates
the terms of the eula. The Windows XP eula doesn't prohibit end users
from using third party remote access applications. If an end user wants
to use Virtual Network Computing, PC Anywhere or some other remote
access application to access Windows XP, they can do so as long as the
user has a separate license for the device used to access the Windows XP
desktop. If an end user wants to use NetMeeting, Remote Desktop, or
Remote Assistance to access Windows XP, the eula grants such rights even
though Windows XP is installed on only one computer. If an end user
uses NetMeeting, Remote Desktop, Remote Assistance or some other remote
access application to access other Microsoft or Non-Microsoft products,
the end user needs to review the applicable license agreement to
determine whether the use of such remote access technology is permitted
without an additional license. I've attached the relevant portions of
the Windows XP eula below. Let me know if there are any other questions
about the Windows XP eula.
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.
NetMeeting/Remote Assistance/Remote Desktop Features. The Product
contains NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop technologies
that enable the Product or other applications installed on the
Workstation Computer to be used remotely between two or more computers,
even if the Product or application is installed on only one Workstation
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.
Please subscribe to see the more insightful version of th
Next they are going to tell me i can only use internet explorer to access the internet. Bill needs to pull his cyborg head out of his ass and remember that people already are trying to bring the company Microsoft down for a monopoly, but i guess he just wants to lead the pack.
- tristan