Slashdot Mirror
Sun Includes Microsoft-Like Automatic Updates Clause
Neill_Smith writes "Following on from Microsoft forcing automatic updates on their users if they want to stay secure, Sun seems to be trying to be trying something similar. They have given themselves permission to 'automatically download, install, and execute applets, applications, software extensions, and updated versions' in the license agreement (hit download) for the JDK on linux (and possibly other platforms)."
... so, why isn't this on the front page with the latest Microsoft gaffe? Yeah, so what, mod me down.
got standards? --- http://www.w3.org/
Anyways, I think it leaves too much to fate to have to watch every vendor for security problems. Why, Once you've checked Microsoft, Sun, RedHat, and many others daily, you've burned up a lot of time. It's so much better that applications can keep themselves up to date.
I'm all for Sun doing this. Java has a security model, so you don't have to worry about Sun doing funky stuff to your box. Unlike Microsft, who I wouldn't let touch my box. They have so many problems with security that they'd probably ruin my box. Or at least re-allow Viruses to destroy it.
-BrentIt's applicable for all platform, not only Linux, and for both the JRE and the JDK. This point is also very interesting:
6. Notice of Automatic Downloads. You acknowledge that, by your use of the Software and/or by requesting services that require use of the Software, the Software may automatically download, install, and execute software applications from sources other than Sun ("Other Software"). Sun makes no representations of a relationship of any kind to licensors of Other Software. TO THE EXTENT NOT PROHIBITED BY LAW, IN NO EVENT WILL SUN OR ITS LICENSORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY LOST REVENUE, PROFIT OR DATA, OR FOR SPECIAL, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, HOWEVER CAUSED REGARDLESS OF THE THEORY OF LIABILITY, ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE OTHER SOFTWARE, EVEN IF SUN HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
Clause 5 seems a bit more troublesome. But they're not trying to pull any wool over anybody's eyes:
In other words, "If you run an installer and it doesn't present new conditions, the old ones still apply." That at least seems pretty reasonable.
If anything is troublesome, it's the implication that they think they can download stuff to your machine without your permission.
First, I get to deal with HIPAA requirements in Windows platforms, now my Oracle/Sun platforms might be at risk.
I'll tell you this: the first time Sun manages to auto-install *anything* on any of my enterprise servers without my blessing, Sun will be explaining it to both our General Counsel and law enforcement. I don't believe an EULA will protect you from criminal prosecution.
I've got service pack 3 and yeah, the EULA says stuff about automatic updates. But you know what. There's a handy dandy automatic update tool in the control panel now. I have it set to "never automatically update". I'm so sure that they are going to try to force software upon me. And at worst, if they do, I remove it. In the worst situation I can re-install windows.
Sun is doing the same thing, I guess its because they want to have an automatic update tool too. Good, its a nice feature for lazy people or people who aren't geeky enough to update their own software.
The way it looks to me is these automatic update clauses are just protections put in by lawyers so there's no way we can sue the companies after using their auto-update tools. It's for their protection in case they automatically update everyone with a virus or buggy program. I highly doubt they are trying to force things on us. Anyone who says otherwise is too paranoid and too fanatical. Just give it up already.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
is less about DRM than about the paradigm of "software as a service." Think of it as Divx (not the codec) for software.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Automatic updates are not good in a live server environment. Many shops run software that are only certified for certain versions. Automatically updating any part of the OS or underlying packages like JDK could break the software. Doesn't sound like alot of thought was put into this.
It's better to burn out than to fade away
Wouldn't a firewall be effective here? I use one to keep Windows from downloading anything behind my back...
Unix systems, and their software are open, even in the most commercialized versions to the point if you don't like key, critical pieces of the operating system you can replace their functionality.
I'm not trying to start an o/s war, so please don't take this comment the wrong way. Thanks.. Len
It never ceases to amaze me how stupid large companies can be. What did they think, nobody would notice?
For those that are particularly worried about the new clauses in the license, why not simply ask Sun (politely) about them rather than letting the paranoia build up with every reply posted here?
You could contact your Sun rep, or use the contact method listed in the the legal and licensing FAQ, or even through the Sun JAVA Forums.
Better to ask first, rather than to jump to incorrect assumptions.
Steve.
Ok, so they're saying "The Software" (the JVM) can download and execute software from Sun or anyone else and execute it.
This has been a standard feature of Java since Day One. An application or applet can load classes from a network as easily as from a file and then execute the class.
Maybe Sun didn't intend to imply automatic updates are part of the new scheme, but it can sure be interpreted that way.
"The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson
>>I wish Debian would automatically update also. Apt-get dist-upgrade is simply too much work.
What, you mean it takes too much of your time? Couldn't you just have cron run it with some kind of hands-off all-defaults detail level?
I don't think it's nearly as over-arching as MSFT's terms, and I expect if Sun was either more explicit or not in a country of lawsuits they would be able to make the disclaimer a bit less broad.
Heck. So could Microsoft if they didn't need to worry about getting sued over everything and anything.
Are you refering to automatic updates in XP? -But you can get rid of those completely via disabling the corresponding service and update manually instead. Also you don't have to use the "Scan for updates" feature, rather you can just browse/search the catalog of security patches (countless...) and download what you need, without m$ ever touching your box (there's some option on the update page you have to set first).
I agree that it's a pain that you can't customize xp like you can with linux and it's very true that m$ treats their customers like babbling idiots... but come to think of it, most of them actually are.
Imagine the Creator as a stand up commedian - and at once the world becomes explicable. -Mencken
To use a slightly silly analogy, you are essentially also suggesting that if someone sells me a sandwich, I must either refuse it entirely or else eat it without first taking a look first at it.If it is given to me for free, I am under an even greater obligation to avoid looking at what I am putting in my mouth.