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.
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
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.
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?
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
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. --
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
Are you sure they won't charge you with allowing someone to use your software without a license?
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
I've always thought it's funny you don't get to accept or decline the EULA until AFTER you plunk down your money for it...
I've always thought it funny that people get so damn surprised that Microsoft puts draconian restrictions like this into every new Windows EULA. You know they're going to do it, so why do you plunk your money down until you can find a copy of their EULA to review?
Besides, the BSA, which is the only organization that gives a damn and has the clout to go after people violating software licenses, won't go after you unless you're a business, or are dealing/distributing software. Microsoft/BSA couldn't care less if Joe Bob computer user manages their Windows machine with VNC. They do it so they can force corporations to buy more Microsoft software to manage their machines, and drive out any other competitors. Can you say "monopoly building"? I thought you could.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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?
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 ?
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
#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'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."
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.
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
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
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 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.
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...
Actually, this is exactly why ELUAs are not usually binding. When you pick up the box, take it to the counter, and pay your money, you have completed a contract. The vendor cannot unilaterally change the terms of that contract by surprising you with a piece of paper with additional terms on the inside.
Actually, the notion of the ELUAs as they are typically attempted by MicroSoft and such are disturbing to me beyond their mere illegality. The idea of ambushing the buyer with additional terms on the contract after the user has already paid for the product is morally repugnant. MicroSoft (along with other vendors) appear to believe that ELUAs should have some force of law, even if the courts know better. If ELUAs were legally binding, wouldn't this ambush tactic be a kind of fraud? How can anyone with a personal sense of honor or any kind of sense of ethics at all perpetrate such a fraud? The very notion of an ELUA hidden from the buyer at the time of purchase with terms as draconian as we keep hearing about from MS speaks volumns of the moral degeneracy that must be rampant at MicroSoft. I would resign from a company before I ever allowed myself to be a party to such a fraud, and I don't understand why the people involved with packaging products and creating these ELUAs at MS don't do this simply to preserve their own integrity. I'm sure MicroSoft would claim that values like integrity, morality, honesty, and honor are very important at their company, but how can we reconcile such a theory with these ELUAs?
Adrian
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ooookay. So it's more likely that MS is trying to cut off use of VNC than it is trying to prevent people using Windoes XP like they intended?
I don't see why you want me modded down, doesn't sound like you read my post at all.
"Derp de derp."
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"
- "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
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'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.
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."
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.
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
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
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
I don't know if it's possible to run a full blown instance of IIS on WinXP...
WindowsXP Pro comes with IIS 5.1. And yes, it is "fully blows".
I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.
...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.)
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.
"People always say that stupid "M$" thing - really get over it - its not funny, its not that creative, and its kind of juvinile."
It's an abbreviation. Deal with it. If it bothers you so much, go ahead a publish a list of authorized abbreviations for everyone to use. Good luck.
"But on the meat of the conversation.
1. No one ever switches from MS. Well, some people do. But all of the people here, who bitch, who moan - they never switch..."
It's easier to dump M$ servers than it is desktops. I'm choosing Linux over M$ where it makes sense -- it's happens more and more as time goes by, the latest example being the remote control restrictions. Thanks to this little stunt, M$ is now totally unsuitable for my applications in Mexico & Switzerland. Adios M$!
"2. I have no respect for any of the anti-MS's around here who stick with MS. Make a stand. Switch and tell them why..."
That's the one thing you got right. Lost revenue is the only language M$ understands. I hate their XP corporate licensing, specifically the "Software Assurance" feature. As a result, I'm freezing deployment of M$ apps at the "2000" product level for North America, Asia, and Europe. We're not buying the upgrades unless they offer a better deal, and if they don't hurry up, we'll phase them out over time. It's only about 750 seats plus 20 servers, but I'm not the only one doing this. Believe me, they know XP licensing is a big problem.
"Here's a tip. IF YOU DON'T LIKE MS SOFTARE ACTUALLY SWITCH TO SOMETHING ELSE. ITS ENTIRELY VOLUNTARY."
I would elaborate more on how much I'm deleting M$, but I wouldn't want my competitors to find out how easy it is or how much money can be saved. Let them learn on their own.
"And I knwo the responses that come from that type of statement - "but but my boss makes me" or "but but learning something is hard". Well suck it up.
My boss counts on me to not leave the company stuck with expensive, nonstandard, unsecure, and unstable software. Therefore I'm always investigating M$ alternatives. The basic idea is to have an exit strategy for every technology product that you bring in the door. Platform independance is what ultimately gives you choices when the vendors get out of control.
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
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."
Don't worry, I'm sure the next version of Windows will include a feature which will prevent evil piraters (TM) from violating the EULA.
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"
Have you never heard of MS license audits? There is lots of evidence that this is the sort of thing MS does enforce.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
At a previous company we were running Oracle. When we looked at migrating it to a WinNT server, we would have needed to get MS CAL for all the windows boxes in our LAN to allow us to use Oracle.
I could have seen that if we were offering File and Print services, but to allow clients to access a seperately licensed product purely using TCP/IP services?
We ended up using Digital Unix instead of NT.
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
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.
Actually, it's probably in there so that they have more things to bring up against a hacker. They're on a security kick, remember? That, or, seeing as how it popped up around NT4 Terminal Server Edition, it's to prevent multi-user useage; simply 'exporting the UI' would render monitors illegal.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
I may not use a keyboard with XP.
As for the EULA: Have you ever tried reading through one of those?
It's quite possible that an actual "end user" will never actually see the EULA, especially where they are using a machine (provided by their employer or school) as part of their work or studies. Who is the "end user" in such a case? The indivudual or the corporate entity who own's the machine. If the latter what happens where the language of the EULA assumes an individual?
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).
Did the lawyer reach any conclusions?
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.
And before you suggest that the bitmap is a derived work, you're right.
Of course I am, but do you know why I'm right? It's not because the bitmap is output of a copyrighted work, because output is not, in itself, a derivitive work.
But the license clearly says Program, not derivative work.
Huh? Where? If the license does not mention derivative works, then you have no right whatsoever to create derivitive works.
A .bmp is not a program by any sane programmer's definition, and therefore doesn't count.
But it is a "Program", by the definition of the GPL:
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.
Not to create derivitive works and copy them across the internet...
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".
Ditto with the Windows EULA.
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.
The GPL can't be understood at all without reading title 17 of the U.S. Code, and that most certainly is not an easy read for most adults. Even after reading title 17 and the GPL you still can't completely understand it, without also knowing how courts have interpreted these documents. And since courts haven't interpreted the GPL, it's actually impossible to understand exactly what it means legally.
To my knowledge, the same could be said of the Windows EULA. I don't know of any
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.
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.
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?
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."
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.
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.
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