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."

Comments

uhm, yeah...

[Tumbleweed]

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.

One non-issue

[kruetz]

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...

Re:One non-issue

[tbannist]

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

Re:VNC

[norwoodites]

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

FUD, FUD, and more FUD

[Blkdeath]

Sorry, guys, but this one's bunk.

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

Microsoft's NT-based products have always (to my reccolection) been licensed on a per-processor basis. That's part of the reason to justify Server -> Advanced Server -> Datacenter. They're referring to the system processor, otherwise known as a central processing unit, or CPU. The nonsense about graphics cards, GPUs, pixel shaders, etc. is bunk. As has already been pointed out, they are not running Windows, Windows is running them.

2.) "You may permit a maximum of ten (10) computers or other electronic devices (each a "Device") to connect to the Workstation Computer to utilize the services of the Product solely for File and Print services, Internet Information Services, and remote access (including connection sharing and telephony services). The ten connection maximum includes any indirect connections made through "multiplexing" or other software or hardware which pools or aggregates connections."

Not a discrepancy, per se, but a limitation imposed so that you may be forced to upgrade the license to a server-class if you're serving a large quantity of clients. The wording is relatively specific, actually, considering it's a Microsoft EULA. I can clearly understand that they are referring to a local network server situation.

3.) "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 not a mainframe. Use your own computer." They don't want you to set up a dozen dumb terminals and use them to run a Windows XP desktop. In the cases of WinVNC / VNC Server, it generally takes over the active desktop, rather than replicating the desktop out for a separate session. In a nutshell, if you're at a keyboard and staring at a monitor and there's a Microsoft Windows XP interface displayed on same monitor, and you are the only one using this interface, you should pay for a license for Windows XP.

4.) "Microsoft reserves the right to discontinue any Internet-based services provided to you or made available to you through the use of the Product."

This one's almost too insulting to respond to. "Microsoft reserves the right to discontinue ... " - discontinue, people. Read. Learn. They are not preventing you from viewing aol.com, they are acknowledging that at some point, Windows Update might not exist any more. Example; Windows 95, and soon-to-be Windows 98. I bet if you looked, you'd find similar clauses in their EULAs. It's known as "CYA" - Cover Your Ass. They don't want to be tied to a web service for the next four decades because somebody read and agreed to an antique EULA.

This is not news. This is FUD, and not even intelligent FUD, at that. Please, Slashdot, don't fan the flames unless warranted.

Re:FUD, FUD, and more FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, some of this is FUD, but there are real restrictions going on here.

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. ...available to you *from MS* through the use of the Product.

When you are in a court of law, judges and juries notice such details.

I'll say this once

[Mr.Sarcastic]

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

Re:Silly Clauses

[walt-sjc]

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.