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
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
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.
We already know that there are whole clauses in licenses that are unenforcable - there are certain rights you can't give up in a contract, certain types of liability that a manufacturer can't disclaim. If I make an unsafe product I can still be held accountable even though the license disclaimed all liability. How is this different? The contract can't dictate whether you can use it with other people's software.. that's your own decision.
Imagine if the BSA was allowed to raid your office and enforce 'interoperability!' MS ends up suing you because you ran VNC on XP desktops, Oracle sues you because there was an SQL Server on the same machine as Oracle, and Netscape sues you because they're angry at the world!
has found a click thru license that has been upheld in court. They can demand all kinds of things but what the courts let them get away with is entirely a different matter
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
I'm not convinced they're trying to slay VNC or anybody else. I think they're covering their own butts. With all these backdoor viruses floating around, I think MS is trying to prevent themselves from being taken to court if somebody is hacked. It sure saves them from having to write code to fix Outlook Express.
"Derp de derp."
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
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."
(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'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.
Anyone who has used the major vendors Unix offerings has been hit by some version of "per user" licensing before. Those who have seen this conclude they are all broken.
Many unix vendors only allow 2 "users" to be loged in at once in default installs. Of course, if you install software that doesn't write to utmp (be that an SSH server, or a web server, or any number of other things) then the limit doesn't apply. The number of ways around this are numerous, and most don't even violate the license.
Microsoft, finally getting with the program, has a similar problem. Their software can finally support multiple users and applications in a reasonable way. They realize, rightfully so, that one big honkin machine, running the same software, can serve hundreds of users. Rather than hundreds of machines, each with a license.
This is a prime example of "value based pricing". I don't think the concept is bad, but many of the implementations are, well, bad. I'm afraid that there will never be a good solution to this problem.
The most fair thing I can come up with is to charge a business per user. Period. If those users all log into a single computer, or each have their own, the fee should be the same. Thus companies can decide to be client server, with a PC on every desk, or mainframe like, with a big server or two and dumb terminals, all at the same cost. In the end, the cost to the software company to develop both is fairly similar, and having the price be the same prevents killing one market in favor of another.
I feel microsoft's wording is overly restrictive here, but at the same time there are more than a few companies who would only buy one copy of {Windows, Office, Linux, Photoshop, etc} if they could find a way to get away with it, including spending a pile of cash on a central server. It's really sad that people won't pay for good software.
Of course, nobody really cares about the truth... enjoy your silly FUD.
I'll concede that the article is just FUD iff your MS rep is willing to put it in writing under his signature as a representative of the company. (A pointer to a scan of the letter will suffice as proof.)
Otherwise, his statement means nothing.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Ooookay. So it's more likely that MS is trying to cut off use of VNC than it is trying to prevent people using Windoes XP like they intended?
I don't see why you want me modded down, doesn't sound like you read my post at all.
"Derp de derp."
I'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.
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
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.
...you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display, or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer, nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display, or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless the Device has a separate license for the Product.
Notice that last part, where they prohibit running the windows user interface remotely on a machine that is NOT licensed for windows. What they want to prevent is using workstation licenses to set up a "windows server", which could let you run windows programs from a non-windows machine.
This is to keep people from buying a small number of windows licenses and putting a few machines running VNC or the like in the server room, to run those few windows applications that the company hasn't been weaned from yet.
Again they're monopolizing - this time by trying to block migration paths from windows to non-windows shops.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
this is really stretching it, but say you've got a dual boot machine with linux/XP on it. by reading this license you can't boot to linux and remotely run any software on the box.
Wrong, at least going by the quote above--note how it says "you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display, or run . . ." Since "Product" presumably refers to Windows, the clause doesn't apply while you're running Linux. (It might, on the other hand, apply if you had an emulator running Linux under Windows.)
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.
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."
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"
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.
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 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.