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?"

Comments

That doesn't mean VNC won't run.

[Bonker]

I was curious, so I installed XP a little while back. Ran just fine with two different versions of VNC

Re:That doesn't mean VNC won't run.

[xonker]

remote assistance is much more efficient than VNC

Maybe -- but the point of the discussion is whether you're even allowed to use something else.

Microsoft's remote assistance might be better than VNC -- but they should have no right to tell users that they can't use VNC. If you pay for XP (or get it preloaded...) you should be able to use it any way you choose.

I do wonder if that clause in the license was meant to prevent using VNC, or if it was an attempt to prevent multiple users from accessing a single Microsoft box and running multiple instances of Office or something like that. Perhaps the author of the original story should have contacted M$ and asked what their take was on that. I'm sure that they would likely have disavowed that they were trying to prevent using VNC in conjuntion with XP. (I doubt they could enforce it anyway...)

Re:That doesn't mean VNC won't run.

[BlowCat]

You can have a desktop full of open windows that survives when you reboot your PC or turn it off for the weekend.

When I worked in New Hamphire, we had power outages quite often, but the server had a UPS. Users could continue to edit the same documents or even continue debugging after the power was restored.

The server was running Linux, the clients were both Linux and Windows based.

No difference...

[JPriest]

I never could get the sub seven client to run under wine anyway...

ssh ?

[jkujawa]

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.

Re:ssh ?

[mark_lybarger]

from reading the license, it appears that ssh is also excluded (though probably not a popular and noteworthy for the article).

"Except as otherwise permitted by the NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop features described below, you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display, or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer, nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display, or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless the Device has a separate license for the Product."


this is really stretching it, but say you've got a dual boot machine with linux/XP on it. by reading this license you can't boot to linux and remotely run any software on the box. maybe "Workstation computer" is defined someplace else in the license to only include that area of the computer with the xp install, but i'm not counting on it.

Re:ssh ?

[Lord Ender]

you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display, or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer To me, this looks like it is against the license to have a server with CGI on a WindowsXP computer. That is a much bigger deal than the VNC thing, in my opinion.

VNC vs. Remote Desktop

[Peyna]

Well, I've used both extensively, and I have to say that from my experience, remote desktop is much better than VNC. Unless you need to control your desktop from something other than XP or machine running IE6 you might have some problems. Never really ran into the issue myself, you could always carry around a disk with TSC if you needed to.

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? =]

Finally, an end to the trojan problem!

[Anonymous Coward]

"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 ;-)

Re:Finally, an end to the trojan problem!

[Alsee]

Microsoft finally figured out how to take care of the thousands of trojans out there

OMG! Microsoft is abusing their monopoly to expand into the trojan market! Pretty soon there's be no option except Microsoft brand trojans!

-

What about PCAnywhere?

[Nailer]

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?

Re:What about PCAnywhere?

[Reziac]

I wonder if this is fallout from another issue:

At the XP rollout I asked (twice, once where the entire audience could hear it) about licensing vs "As a guest using remote assistance, you are able to run anything on the remote system"... frex, Word. But Word's current license is PER USER, *not* PER SEAT. (One computer, one copy of Word, 6 *possible* users == you are now required to have 6 licenses -- possibly 7 if your M$Office install was OEM, since in some confused way it appears that sometimes the computer itself is regarded as a user.)

The M$ guy quite deliberately danced all around but never answered my question.

Draw your own conclusions.

This is for "Citrix like" applications.

[tshak]

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.

Re:This is for "Citrix like" applications.

[markj02]

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. I wish it did, but XP is such a primitive system that that's not easily possible. As far as Windows is concerned, VNC gives you the ability to remotely control a machine into which you are logged in, no more.

In any case, what matters is not whether VNC lets you do this but that Microsoft tries to impose such restrictions. It's just another indication of how much they are trying to milk and control their customers. Any rational buyer should run from that kind of company, and this should be added to the long list of anticompetitive practices to be investigated.

The accessing machine must have a liscense

[asmithmd1]

from the article

Microsoft's XP license agreement says, "Except as otherwise permitted by the NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop features described below, you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display, or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer, nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display, or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless the Device has a separate license for the Product."

So if you are running XP on the machine you are runnning VNC you do not violate the license

Re:The accessing machine must have a liscense

[Royster]

What part of "unless" don't you understand?

But everyone seems to be missing the important problem with the license. The real problem with the license is that certain MS products get a free ride and get priviledges that competing products do not.

Re:The accessing machine must have a liscense

[Calle Ballz]

Lemme highlight the whole thing, so that you can read the whole thing:

Microsoft's XP license agreement says, "Except as otherwise permitted by the NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop features described below, you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display, or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer, nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display, or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless the Device has a separate license for the Product."

What microsoft wants here is everyone who uses XP to have a license for the device they are using XP on. So if your friend sets up a WinXP box with a VNC server, microsoft doesn't want you "enjoying the functionality and features of XP" from your win98 box, win2k box, linux box or your toaster. Microsoft feels that people may not upgrade from win98 to XP because they might use VNC to access a seperate, 3rd party XP machine. It's pretty gay, but unless you are running XP on all machines involved... you are breaking their license.

Don't buy XP, don't worry about.

Re:Look, more FUD.

[steppin_razor_LA]

Here is what the article quotes (I don't have XP so I'm not sure about it's license agreement)

The way I read this is that this prohibits software from remotely driving the computer - whether it is for serving applications or for administrative purposes.

Microsoft's XP license agreement says, "Except as otherwise permitted by the NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop features described below, you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display, or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer, nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display, or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless the Device has a separate license for the Product."

I don't think it is even possible to set up VNC to be used on the Windows platform to set up application sharing -- the VNC instance is tied to the desktop -- IMHO that means it is only good for a single user and I don't see why it matters whether that single user is at the KB on the console or a remote console.

I also agree with an earlier poster -- for the Windows platform, the Terminal Services client is *FAR* superior to VNC -- of course it is -- VNC works by sending bitmaps across the pipe -- the terminal services client can send API calls -- same principle as behind Xwindows.

I often like to install both as there has been times when Terminal services has croaked but VNC hasn't and vice-versa.

2-Borg Limit

[unsinged int]

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.

Netscape

[Deanasc]

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.

Re:Netscape

[hattig]

This has been badly moderated as a Troll, but the point is valid.

By excluding previously allowed software on their systems, Microsoft are extending their monopoly over the software that runs on their system.

It is most likely that this part of the EULA would be overturned in a court ruling as being unreasonable.

In any company, to comply with the license, they must use a Microsoft remote terminal application. This is restriction of business (or product tying), as companies will comply with the license of course!)

Someone should point this out to the 9 states and the DOJ as evidence that Microsoft are *continuing* to act in a predatory monopolistic manner, and that harsh terms need to be applied in order to allow true competition in the OS and application market.

I still don't get this:

[nahtanoj]

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

A sure sign of despiration...

[ChrisKnight]

When you can't crush your competition through weilding the club of monopoly, exercise your 'right' to stick innane clauses in your license agreement.

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 .NET on Windows.

- 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

Re:A sure sign of despiration...

[GregWebb]

Which is still ridiculous, given that XP won't give you more than one desktop.

You show me a way to get 15 people using the same non-server XP PC at the same time, each doing whatever they want, and I'll acknowledge that each of those 15 could justifiably need an individual license.

While only one can use it simultaneously, though, the point becomes ridiculous. I mean, are they seriously suggesting that people will run a small bunch of XP boxes then VNC into them from Linux terminals, dancing round until they find a free XP box? And, even if they did, why is this philosophically different from shared computer labs / hotdesking / pool laptops?

This is monopolist extortion, pure and simple.

No, the point is that NO ONE

[Archfeld]

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

Re:No, the point is that NO ONE

[Zeinfeld]

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

Err not quite, there is one case although the precedent is fairly weak, the case was pretty narrow and was not appealled. The case involved a CDROM with telephone numbers on that would not be copyrightable as a mere aggregation of non copyright data. The court held that the shrinkwrap license established a contractual agreement not to copy the data, although the precedent is weak since there were other issues involved.

Also in the DeCSS case the existence of a shrinkwrap license was considered significant, although it was not decisive in that particular case.

That is beside the point in this case however since the clause would probably constitute an illegal restraint of trade if interpreted as in the article. Also the courts are much more willing to interpret clickwrap as establishing the type of copyright protections that they are used to in other media, than they are to allow the introduction of extraneous terms.

Re:No, the point is that NO ONE

[studerby]

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

has found a click thru license that has been upheld in court. They can demand all kinds of things but what the courts let them get away with is entirely a different matter

The case you're talking about is ProCD,Inc. vs. Zeidenberg, and your remarks are close but a bit off. Because white-page phonebook listings and similar "brute-force" database lists that are the product of hard work but no creativity are *not* protected by copyright (The Suprmeme Court's "Feist v. Rural Telephone" decision), ProCd was able to gather up phone books and create a national phone CD. Zeidenberg then took the CD, created a web interface to the data and was sued by ProCD.

Zeidenberg won in District Court, ProCd appealed to the 7th Circuit and lost there, and Zeidenberg did not appeal to the Supreme Court. In the 7th circuit ruling, Judge Easterbrook specifically reversed the trial court on the enforceability of shrinkwrap licenses. The way courts do things, this precedent is binding in all the District Courts in the 7th Circuit, but not elsewhere.

From a copyright perspective, this decision is ludicrous, because it in essence says that any publisher can slap a "contract" on something (book, cd, etc.) and thereby void any rights consumers otherwise might have, but until someone with bucks take the matter to the Supreme Court, we lack a definitive answer to the problem...

Typical.

[Anonynnous Coward]

This kind of clause is not new. From the Windows 98 EULA:

torage/Network Use. You may also store or install a copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on a storage device, such as a network server, used only to install or run the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your other COMPUTERS over an internal network; however, you must acquire and dedicate a license for each separate COMPUTER on or from which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is installed, used, accessed, displayed or run.

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:

You may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer, nor may you permit any Device to display the Product's user interface, unless the Device has a separate license for the Product.

Good thing that except for those unfortunates who live in UCITA states, these clauses are likely to mean dick.

Slashdot is wrong as usual.

[duffbeer703]

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.

Predictable and not impresssive anymore

[justsomebody]

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"

Is this being totally misinterpreted?

[NanoGator]

"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.

Re:GPL Prohibits VNC

[MajroMax]

Screenshots are derived works (they contain copyrighted bitmaps). Under the GPL you cannot copy derived works without distributing the source code to those derived works.

(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.

Kinda makes sense... if curiously worded.

[Balinares]

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.

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 .NET programs, and more precisely, Web services, count as "other executable software"?

Re:Look, more FUD.

[AdrianG]

• I also agree with an earlier poster -- for the Windows platform, the Terminal Services client is *FAR* superior to VNC -- of course it is -- VNC works by sending bitmaps across the pipe -- the terminal services client can send API calls -- same principle as behind Xwindows.

Nonsense!! With Palm VNC I can take over my desktop with my Kyocera Smartphone. Can you give me a Windows Terminal services client that runs on a palm pilot? There are VNC clients and servers for a large variety of platforms. What do you think are the chances that MS will permit interoperability with Linux (which they've called THE major threat to Windows) or with PalmOS (the major competitor to WinCE)?

Window Terminal Services are only far superior if you've already been assimilated. Even if I am sitting in front of a Windows machine, a Terminal Services client won't help me take over one of my Linux boxes. Terminal Services is mostly just good for locking me into Windows. No thanks.

Adrian

Re:Anything to Limit MS

[Melantha_Bacchae]

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.

Re:Not necessarily anti-VNC...

[Negadecimal]

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.

For some reason, I read this and imagined a sign outside of a bank entrance: "By entering this bank, you agree not to steal our money."

They can claim anything they want..

[defile]

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.

They don't want you to use workstations as servers

[Ungrounded Lightning]

...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.

Just naive or stupid? (Re:That doesn't mean VNC..)

[rseuhs]

Aren't people really too dumb to realize that shit like this is just the first step?

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

[boris_the_hacker]

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.

Easy fix

[BlueUnderwear]

Print out the EULA, strike the offending paragraphs out, have it notarized, and send a copy in a certified letter to Microsoft, with a note saying that their signature (on delivery of letter) is acceptance of the ammended terms. End of story.

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...

VNC is not restricted, in my interpretation

[Webmoth]

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?