Slashdot Mirror
Windows XP EULA Discrepancies
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."
But, seriously, who gives a shit what's in any MS EULA? We all know there's going to be bullshit in any MS EULA, just as we all knew they were going to try and patent their .NET stuff, just as we all knew they'd worm their way out of real antitrust punishments. I hate to sound pessimistic here, but c'mon, does the real world ever show up around here? Ignore EULAs (MS or not) and get on with your day.
Yes, this'll hurt my karma, but I've got plenty to spare and this is actually therapeutic.
OK, some of this is FUD, but there are real restrictions going on here.
...available to you *from MS* through the use of the Product.
Blkdeath>They don't want you to set up a dozen dumb terminals and use them to run a Windows XP desktop
The language also seems to remove the possibility of running a single instance XP over VNC from Linux. Of course they let you use Linux in this way from their own framework, but *they control* how you do it.
MS>Internet-based services provided to you or made available to you through the use of the Product."
Blkdeath>..don't want to be tied to a web service
Then MS could make everything perfectly clear with an extra clause, e.g.
When you are in a court of law, judges and juries notice such details.
EULAs usually are not worth the paper their printed on. Just BUY the software and the EULA does not apply. If you go to Microsoft and LICENSE software it will apply. Check it out here