Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Windows XP EULA Discrepancies

Posted by timothy on from the what-would-a-good-eula-look-like dept.

Greg Edmiston writes "I came across some interesting ambiguities upon reviewing the Windows XP EULA which turn common scenarios into potential EULA violations. Among the potential violations include VNC, dual-processor workstations with graphics cards, and running Gnutella. Just some food for thought."

9 of 69 comments (clear)

  1. VNC by jbolden · · Score: 2, Informative

    It looks like VNC does violate the license. That's actually sensible since without that requirement you could use a high end windows desktop + VNC to run support apps for a dozen users. Windows does support virtual terminals so assuming the users didn't stomp on each other....

    1. Re:VNC by norwoodites · · Score: 3, Informative

      This part is a repeat of another atricles on /., http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/03/17/23 33207&mode=nested.

  2. Sort of interesting by gizmo_mathboy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Interesting as this may be they only point that seemed most interesting was about VNC.

    I've been ok with how win2k performs and I see no real reason to upgrade to winxp. I am actually working harder to move everything to linux and save windows for those machines I have to administer at work.

  3. One non-issue by kruetz · · Score: 4, Informative

    1.) "The Product may not be used by more than two (2) processors at any one time on any single Workstation Computer."

    It seems that Microsoft wrote this with dual-CPU workstations in mind. However, what qualifies as a processor? My graphics card has an on-board GPU which is as good as any.

    Well, I don't think this is an issue - the "product" is WinXP. Now, you're graphics card is not executing any WinXP code - WinXP is sending it dynamically-generated drawing instructions. To claim that WinXP is "being used" by the GPU doesn't seem to describe the situation. A more accurate description would be "WinXP is CONTROLLING the GPU".

    If I'm wrong, we're all going to piracy hell, because there a processors in our sound cards, network adapters, hard-drives and cd-roms, ... you get the idea.

    I'm sure they only mean processors that are capable of executing/running WinXP, which certainly ONLY covers your AMD/Intel CPU.

    I agree that the term "processors" IS ambiguous, but when it's coupled with the "may not be used by more than" phrase, I think it's quite clear that they're talking about PCs with more than 2 CPUs.

    But the other issues are rather worrisome. Especially #2 - "The ten connection maximum includes any indirect connections made through "multiplexing"...". How the Hell are you going to know if someone's running NAT on their machine and their entire LAN of 500 PCs is accessing your machine?!? This one IS BULLSHIT.

    And since they mention IIS in their clause, doesn't it mean that as a web-server running IIS under WinXP - YOU CAN ONLY SERVE 10 PAGES SIMULTANEOUSLY.

    BUT THIS IS GOOD - REALLY. We can get Microsoft to take themselves to court over this one - if microsoft.com is using IIS under WinXP (and if not, they're not sleeping in the bed they've made) wouldn't you agree that it's highly likely that they have served more than 10 pages at one time? If so, Microsoft has broken their own EULA and as a result I don't see how they could take anyone else to court over this issue. So it may well be a complete non-issue.

    Still, EULAs need to be regulated so that you either can't lose all sorts of rights when you purchase software, OR the licenses is made available to you before your potential purchase.

    God I hate Microsoft's legal dept...

    --

    This sig intentionally left bla... dammit!
    Who's got the whiteout?
    1. Re:One non-issue by jbolden · · Score: 2, Informative

      If so, Microsoft has broken their own EULA and as a result I don't see how they could take anyone else to court over this issue. So it may well be a complete non-issue.

      Licenses have no effect on the license holder. Microsoft can do whatever they want with their software regardless of any license restrictions.

      The other problem is dimes to dollars this doesn't show up in the server license.

      Now if Microsoft knew that somebody else was serving over 10 pages at a time using desktop and didn't do anything about it and then went after you might be able to make a case.

    2. Re:One non-issue by tbannist · · Score: 3, Informative

      As I understand it, EULAs are simply not enforceable. The purchaser needs to agree to the EULA before the purchase of the software or else it's not a legal contract.

      Two reasons:
      1) By contract law, all details of an agreement must be disclosed prior to offer and acceptance. In other words, before the purchaser agrees to pay money for the software.

      2) By contract law, both parties must benefit from a contract. Since the EULA provides no benefits to the end user, it is not a valid contract on it's own.

      So, if the purchaser signed the EULA before paying for the software he might have a real legal problem, but otherwise it's only enforceable by intimidation and threats.

      -
      IANAL

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
  4. yes by AnotherBrian · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ask Slashdot http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/07/29/16 55222
    EULA DB http://la.shano.org/index.html

  5. Re:Silly Clauses by walt-sjc · · Score: 3, Informative

    Um, well Yeah. This is the EULA for "workstation" products. You need to buy "SERVER" if you want to run server apps. MS has mdae it quite clear for YEARS (since NT4 came out) that this was the case.

    These are not the two you are looking for. Move along.

  6. Re:Not all devious by AnotherBrian · · Score: 2, Informative

    Think of it like this:
    Say you bought a car and it came with a EULA that said you where only allowed to go 50mph, so the speedometer only went from 0-50. However the car was capable of going 100mph with no modifications apart from pushing the gas pedal a little further down. Let's also say that the manufacture of the car also sold another model that was exactly like the one you bought, except that its' speedometer went form 0-100. Of corse the 'faster' model cost an extra $5000 In other words, they sell a product capable of doing something and then say I'm not allowed to it.

    I'd like to see the car company try to enforce this EULA that says I can't drive 100mph in my 'economy' model. When I buy something, I have the legal and moral right to use that product to its' full capacity, then modify it and use it some more!