Slashdot Mirror
Sell Your Computers, Keep Paying MS For Licenses
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft Licensing 6.0 requires a company to pay up on software maintenance when the computers that are covered under the license are sold off. Here's the kicker though: MS is no longer obligated to provide maintenance even though the contract is paid up! Read the Infoworld article."
Tell me Mr. Anderson: what good is a MICROSOFT LICENSING 6.0 if you are unable to KEEP USING IT AFTER YOU SELL YOUR COMPUTERS?
Now that innovation!
Mabye this is what they kept talking about during all of those trials.
You don't own software. Software is a contract, and even though you shelled out $x for a piece of software, you are bound to the agreement. Transfering a Windows license is like any other contract.. read it carefully and make sure you're permitted to do so.
I'm not saying that MS is good, quite the contrary. They will rape their customers for as much money as they can, but from a bunsiness standpoint they're just just doing business.
If you don't like it, use linux.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
what if my computer catches fire, and is reduced to carbon? do i still keep on paying to MS?
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
I've often wondered - I've got a Sony Vaio, which came for a licence for Windows ME (which I don't use anyway). But when the laptop eventually dies, does the licence die with it?
Or am I allowed to move it to another computer?
-- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
Maybe Apple was right with their (globally lambasted) "Lemmings" super bowl ad in 1985. Business just blindly walked off the cliff and right into Gates/Ballmers' bank accounts.
Of course I suspect if history had been different and we'd all ended up buying Apple's the result would not be that different. We'd have a Steve Jobs/Borg head icon instead perhaps. =)
At least we didn't all buy Amigas... then we'd all have to off ourselves for being such bleating wankers.
heh.
..."What microsoft is really doing is saying, 'Hey, just recognize you are truly at our mercy.' "
If you didn't already know that, you just haven't been paying attention.
How many more reasons do companies need to dump Microsoft and go with unix/linux?
comment directly in my journal
If I sign a 4 year maintanaince contract with Pedros lawn care, I have to keep paying even if I move and the new owners dont want them running around the yard spraying pesticide.
The same goes with many other maintanaince/support contracts. Dont like it? Do business with someone else.
We have customers who still contractually pay for support on HP big iron boxes that havent been plugged in for years.
Another case of MSFT doing the same thing everyone else does, execpt (heres the kicker!) for some reason it's "evil" because you dont like windows.
Big fat whoop. MS Licensing is a business support contract, and pretty much a standard one at that.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
From the office of Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf :
In post Saddam Iraq, Microsoft licenses you.
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
Please do continue your efforts to rip^H^H^H fleece^H^H^H^H^H^H provide "value-added" propositions to your customers through your wonderful License Agreement.
You are making my world domination^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H job so much easier.
Thank you so much in advance,
Yours respectfully,
Linus Torvalds
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Not to *use* it, it doesn't. The GPL only asks for your source if you use it's source. It's like consensual sex vs rape...
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
" what if my computer catches fire, and is reduced to carbon? do i still keep on paying to MS?"
Give us your URL. We'll find out.
As businesses get wise to these kind of contracts, they will get smarter about entering into them. For years now, most companies have been "stupid" when it comes to IT -- but times are changing. Companies are getting MUCH more sophisticated about how they handle their IT.
This is a short term problem.
The beauty of living under a régime of napoleonic civil code instead of the common law is that such a stunt could never be pulled, as every kind of transaction is rigidly codified in law...
My guess is that this is just a side effect of whatever the standard contract is. When licensing software you don't want to have to negotiate a different licensing agreement with each customer unless you have to. Of course one size doesn't always fit all so this sometimes has some unintended consequences. MS can afford to ignore some of these because there aren't exactly a lot of realistic alternatives. Behavior is nearly always explained by incentives.
While I fully agree that this is not the most ethical behavior, But I also think this might fall under the category of "never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity". I think this is just something that was overlooked or ignored because it was problematic. Plus who else are you going to go to? (*cough* monopoly *cough*)
Instead of whining here are some things that you can do.
Ask computer manufacturers if their machines are linux compatible
(especially laptops)video cards, sound cards, etc.
Most have a toll free numbers.
If the don't support linux ask "them when will they?".
Ask software suppliers it they have ported their products to linux.
Call their main office. Once one company listens others will follow.
We need a "Linux Call the Manufacturer Day".
They will get the message.
I'm honestly no longer surprised when a new story comes out along the lines of "give MS money, get nothing in return".
First it was per cpu licensing, then refund day, the MS tax on every name brand computer, licensing 6.0, expiring licenses, the "media center pc" (which is nothing more than a PC with a tv tuner), pay for support you don't (and can't) get.
What totally boggles my mind is that in the face of so many alternatives in both the desktop and server markets (linux, sun, mac os x) people continue to pull down their pants and bend over for Bill.
Not only do they not complain, but they do it willingly. People jump at the chance to hand over their hard earned cash to a bunch of crooks.
Maybe MS knows their days are numbered and it's only a matter of time before people wake up out of the mass stupor blanketing this planet, and that's why they're milking those poor fools for all they can.
We are under EA (enterprise agreement) version 6 here at my company and this is how it works. Once a year you tell MS how many computers are using what software products. This only happens once per year. Yes, if you cut the number of machines in half you won't see an immediate savings until the next time you give MS your numbers.
However, if you end up doubling your computers you come out ahead: you basically get free use of the software until you update your numbers with MS.
This also means you could get free use of software if you only used it for part of a year. For example, if you give MS numbers each January, you could install extra stuff in February, remove it in December, and MS would never have to know you used it.
The EA does end up saving money if you were going to upgrade all the time anyway, or perhaps only skip one version. If you tend to skip two or more versions, the EA would most likely cost you more money.
Most reasonable contracts have escape clauses that kick in if you move, or some such. Very few businesses can convince customers to sign a contract that potentially leaves them paying bills and getting nothing in return. People will, as you suggest, push that nonsense away and head over to the competition.
The fact that Microsoft can get away with this is a testament to the lack of options most businesses feel they have.
Just you wait until, along with a new social security number, you're required to purchase a Windows 2014 license for your new child, along with lifetime maintenance.
All in the name of curbing copyright infringement, mind you.
All we need to do is get Congress to declare the current method of software "licensing" to be illegal; then force the idea that "once you buy software you BUY it--you can use it perpetually--but only one computer at a time, and if you sell it ALL your rights in the matter go to whomever you sold the software.
.sig says...
End of problem. Unfortuantely, it's harder to accomplish than anyone can imagine. Which is why you all need to elect me as Emperor for life. And, just like my
With Linux, when you want to transfer the license, you have to pay a transfer fee of 72.8 times the original license cost!
We purchase all of the new PCs we order with a Microsoft EA SA agreement. It's a nightmare trying to keep track of which boxes at which location have what version OS on them, what kind of upgrades they're covered up through, and so on. There's a dedicated guy just for our department that does nothing but dealing with licensing.
For anybody who's never taken the time to read through some of these contracts, print one out sometime or read through the EULA next time you upgrade Windows and be prepared to be suprised. Honestly, MS plays by their own rules.
The crappy thing is there is no real alternative. There's over 50,000 computers in this organization. Switching these boxen over to linux isn't an option (sorry guys, I love linux as much as the next guy, but the average 50 year-old in HR ISN'T going to be able to use it). And as expensive as dealing with MS is, it's still cheaper than buying 50,000 Macs and running OSX on them. Besides, most propritery medical apps only run on Windows from what I've seen.
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned for SEGA. ..."
Why didn't I think of that.
Me: "Hey boss, I don't like the new MS license system. Letstop using Ms products."
Boss: "Sure, what would that entail?"
Me: "Um, well, the accounting, mail, DNS, Database, HR and Engineering servers would have to be completely redone, half of our software would have to go as well. We would also need to replace about half of our support staff with more expensive staff."
Boss: "Why haven't I fired you yet?"
"The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."
Someone spent a lot of time researching something pretty basic - if you sell a computer that has an "open license" (the license is not tied to the computer), Microsoft will allow the ownership of the operating system to transfer, but not the right to "free" upgrades. Umm, duh? Who, in their right mind, if they aren't giving way their software, would?
DAMMIT! STOP MAKING ME DEFEND MICROSOFT!!! ARGH!
Essentially, Microsoft are saying "We're going to sell you a three-year non-transferrable support and upgrade contract." Nothing wrong with that. They also let you make payments instead of paying for the full three years up front. Again, nothing bad about that. They DO specify that you have to pay off the balance on any machines that you sell, though. How's that any different than, say, requiring you to pay off your bank loan before you sell your car?
It seems to be that nobody'd be complaining if they just required the entire payment for three years up-front and said"It's non-transferrable. Cope." People are pissed because Microsoft offers a payment plan, but they won't automatically transfer that plan.
Forward, retransmit, or republish anything I say here. Just don't misquote me.
Not that anyone who isn't actually buying or selling divisions of companies cares, but here are a couple of other things you might think about to make sure you're protected:
- make sure each legal entity is the licensor of its own licenses (ie. Bluelight should have been the licensor, not Kmart); then when the division is sold or divested, it is transparent to Microsoft (you may lose some volume discount here, of course);
- if you haven't done the above or are selling assets instead of equity, set up a permanent lease of the computers to the buyer instead of transferring ownership; make sure payments are structured (probably through some sort of escrow account or trust) so the lease is a lease and not a sale;
- in a bankruptcy, ask the judge to tell Microsoft to stuff it, which he may well have the power to do, and if he's a Windows user will certainly *want* to do.
Does it need to be said? IANAL.
On a related note, why doesn't some unemployed entrepreneur out there start a company that buys unused MS licenses (for Windows and Office, say) from companies that are downsizing or going out of business, then resell them to large companies that are being audited by MS? I know a few that would pay decent money just to not have to sort out the mess that is their file cabinet full of licenses, even if they do lose SA.
Milo
Legislatures often pass bad laws. Their intentions are good, but the letter of the law often leads to ridiculous conclusions when taken to the extreme.
It usually takes many years to discover how badly a law has been written, because it usually takes many years for people (or companies) to get around to pushing the wording to its logical conclusion. When Microsoft (or the RIAA, etc.) imposes seemingly ridiculously licensing terms on the public, they're actually doing us all a service in the long run, by quickly demonstrating to legislators that the applicable public policies are (in the long run) unworkable.
We know Microsoft isn't going to "win" in the long run (they're losing our data centers already, and eventually they'll lose our desktops and office suites as well), but when they do these extremely silly things they actually help hasten their own eventual demise, by rapidly educating the public (and the policy makers) about what's wrong with current regulation.
Getting laws corrected may feel like it's occuring with glacial slowness to those of us who already understand where things are heading, but it'll actually happen much more quickly than it would otherwise, the worse Microsoft behaves. So I say, heck ya Microsoft! Charge us twice for things you don't deliver...charge us ten times, twenty! Let's show the world what the phrase "illegal monopoly" -really- means.
I hope that after I die the one word people use to describe me is "resurrected."
Anyone else remember a /. story from a couple of years ago where a teacher found a bunch of old 386 machines and installed a copy of Win3.1 on them for use by underprivledged children? IIRC, the machines themselves originally had a Windows license. MS tried to rape this guy and demand license fees for all the copies of the ~10 year old software.
It sounds to me like they are just codifying their past behavior into lawyereese in their EULA.
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
better way to put it:
-hey, there's this company that wants us to pay them even if we stop using their product and there's an extra contract included that gives them rights to anything we have on our systems if they would want it. the contract also includes an extortion option for them we can do nothing about, and the system is going to go through expensive forced migration to another backwards incompatible system in short time, and this we can do nothing about either if we want our business to be safe. oh, and there's an alternative for using them that would free our balls from their fist.
-why exactly are we doing business with this company again?
surely, not as black'n'white as that, but if executives actually read and understood half of the stuff they agree with ms...
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I've been moving my work onto Linux, gradually, for several years now. I'm not an anti-Microsoft zealot by any stretch of the imagination; in fact, ten years ago, I was very pleased with many products coming out of Redmond. But as time has passed, Microsoft's products have bloated while their business practices leave a bad taste in my mouth.
Their licensing policies are the last straw; their greedy stupidities drive me nuts. Example: I bought a machine recently that came with a new copy Windows XP. I installed Linux on that machine, wanting to put the XP on one of my other boxes. But this copy of XP won't upgrade an existing installation of Windows 2000! Microsoft's reponse: I can only install the XP on a the machine it is "assigned" to!
Can someone please explain to me how Microsoft loses anything by my installing a "new" XP over an existing installation? Why do they care what machine I install the product on, so long as I've paid for it? Their arrogance is amazing; it is the result of corporate feudalism. I, for one, do not wish to be their peasant or peon.
As it is, I do 90% of my work on Linux now; I have only one Windows machine in my office, and it is used to simplify my interface with the MS world. But my next book is being written on Linux using AbiWord, LyX, and TeX, and I no longer take jobs that require MS products. A minor financial hit, to be sure, but a choice I can survive.
Microsoft lost me as a customer because of their attitude, not their product.
All about me
License agreements are becoming more and more abusive. I decided to jump several steps ahead (short steps) and write the final EULA:
The final license agreement:
- I can do anything I like.
- You have no power.
- You can't say anything bad about me.
- Everything belongs to me.
I knew a 3-year-old who said this. He has since become an adult, which is more than I can say for some executives.Is that even if MS went away tomorrow, we wouldn't suddenly have a great new OS to replace them. I mean, 12 years later Linux, while having made great strides, is NOT ready for mainstream yet.
Sad but true.
Once Linux becomes capable enough to make it mainstream MS won't be able to keep it out. Because there is little real financial burden on Linux. It's an open source product where ALOT of the work is done, in essence, for free. So MS can't bully it out of the marketplace by putting pressure on their vendors until the OS suffocates itself for lack of funds like a competing comppany would surely do.
It's here to stay because nobody is paying for it, and nobody is financially burdened by it. So it developson it's own, with TONS of fierce competition from MS. And it does nothing but grow and grow.
People should STOP complaining about Ms being a monopoly and START contributing to Linux/GNU.
One of the above posters said if you don't like it, don't use it. Thats dead wrong. As with everything else in life, if you don't like it, do something to change it. Do something to enhance Linux and/or its acceptance.
"The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."
No need to jump off the cliff, I have made this suggestion many times to people who dislike microsoft's policies and are "stuck", basically, when it comes time to upgrade a certain product, consider the alternative, and slowly move on to another solution, just take your time, eventually, 3-4 years you will be rid of ms completly, with a very low cost as the transition will have been slow.
Posting useless rant since 2003.
...why the US Army rejected Windows XP. Under NO--repeat, NO--circumstances are they willing to enter a situation where a vendor can shut them down. If push comes to shove because of file-format issues, Microsoft can look forward to selling *ONE* XP computer to the Army until they can convert anything involved into open formats. Period. End of story. (yes, I am somewhat in the know on this)
The answer is, most contracts are in some way transferrable. If your aunt dies and leaves you a computer, its warrantee is transferred to you... in most states it's actually illegal to have it not transfer. If you sign up for three years' prepaid DSL in a house of six college students, and then transfer after the first year, you can (I have) transfer the service over to somone else's name, as long as they're at the same address. If your car comes with 60,000 mile power train protection, it doesn't matter if your car was sold eleven times, you're still entitled to it. (Unless your car has been sold as a salvage vehicle.)
There are non-transferrable contracts, but those have to be scrutinized carefully. For example, the idea a non-transferrable *END-USER* software license has been invalidated by the courts a number of times. Right of first purchase comes with the right to transfer your license to anyone else. (Do you honestly think there would be any way of transferring licenses for MS software if this weren't the case? There is, as long as it wasn't an OEM copy of Windows... and even then you can transfer it as long as you sell the hardware in tandem.)
Here we have a software purchase agreement which is nontransferrable. It's just that this one is for a big company, and so MS can, perhaps, get away with it.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
So you had a boxed copy of XP, and it's license, which came in the box, stated that XP could be used on any compatible hardware and transfered to other hardware at any time, as long as there is only 1 copy installed at any one time.
And you think that their changing the EULA with a service pack update can force your original license to suddenly be bound to a single piece of fictitious hardware that the software wasn't purchased with in the first place?
<quote character="Martin" show="The Simpsons">
Ha Ha.
</quote>
No Comment.
Um and what do you think businesses would have to run on those Macs? MS Office perhaps?
:-)
You can't leave the empire that easily (Bwahaahaa...
I love Linux and OS X as much as the next guy, but it's not that simple. If you think it is, I can't believe that you work in a mainly microsoft shop like myself and most clients I work with.
psxndc
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
To avoid using M$ products. This just highlights the extortion scheme that the Microsoft Licensing really is. It's time to start using open source products to help shut this down. Lets face it guys, our politicians have been bought and paid for to look the other way while M$ fleeces its customers. Don't want to get caught in this nightmare? Don't upgrade to new versions of M$ products. Instead start using OSS products. Don't feel that they are not as good as the M$ crap? Start by bringing it in to the non-critical areas. For instance, instead of using IIS, use Apache. Don't code for .NET, code for J2EE, Pearl, PHP or other OSS languages. You don't have to move everything over to OSS at one time. You can move gradually. Each time you move over a piece, you deny M$ its license fees. As this revenue starts to dwindle, they will either revise their extortion schemes, or suffer the fate of extinction. Plain and simple. Don't just whine about M$'s licensing, do something about it.
Quit playing Monopoly with Bill.
Linux - of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Lists of Microsoft Abuses:
Overall abuses: Reasons to Avoid Microsoft. (More than 200 in one year!)
Abuses in one product: Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going.
Sometimes people confuse themselves by thinking of Microsoft as a software company that is abusive. It can be more clear to think of Microsoft as an abuse company that sells software.
Judging from some of the things I've seen, there must be executives at Microsoft who every day energetically think of more ways to put the customer's back against the wall.
I've spent more than 20 years studying things of this nature, and I think what's happening at Microsoft is a general social breakdown. Usually in situations of this sort, things get worse and worse until something breaks.
Other social breakdowns:
The U.S. government: History surrounding the U.S. war with Iraq: Four short stories
and What should be the Response to Violence?.
Law in the U.S. state of Oregon:
Complicated methods corrupt Oregon government.
and Airplanes are safe, but laws often crash.
"So, it sounds like Micro$oft has got you by the ball's eh. It's called a monopoly."
Nope, at least not in the example he used. The problem he described wasn't that the stuff wasn't unavailble, the problem was that it'd cost them money. The ability to move is there, he's not being prevented from switching platforms. His company was too reliant on one vendor.
This can easily happen whether the vendor is a monopoly or not.
What's really funny is that more and more bosses are pushing open source these days. They've heard a speech, or read an article, claiming Linux is a huge cost-saver. You might have to spend a little more on adapting the software and training the staff, but that's nothing compared to the license costs. Besides, the transition from DOS to Windows, and later from Windows 3.x to Windows 9x, was just as large.
Any company switches software systems regularly. Next time, it'd be foolish not to consider open source alternatives.
Sticking with the old system will always be the cheapest in a shorter time-frame. If the boss knows that Linux will save the company lots of money on a three-year basis, and you still claim that Microsoft is the better alternative, then you will get fired.
I thought it was common knowledge that this was how Microsoft treated their volume licensing customers. It was what we figured would happen with our several-hundred license shop when we decided to shut down, and it's played out that way.
:) And most of what we're doing has been running off our AS/400 up until now anyway.
The company I work for has one of these agreements with Microsoft, and is about to make payment number two of three in a few months. It's about $20,000 every year for 400 licenses or so. When we informed them we were closing the business before the third payment would come due, they in turn informed us that they would hold us to the letter of the contract, and require that third payment in full.
So if you decide to close your business one month into an MS volume licensing agreement, expect you will have to figure in the next two payments for part of your cost of closing the business. Or else file bankruptcy to get out of it. Either way, Microsoft will inform you that you owe in full to the last penny of your agreement if you try to get out early, and you'll be left holding the bag at the end with whatever version of the software was the "latest" at the time the SA ran out. It sucks, but at the time the decision was made the company was moving to become an all-Microsoft shop. I came in several months after they abandoned that approach (thank goodness), but we are left with the legacy. So we'll be forking out another $20K next year for 360+ unused seats if we want to get the most value out of the contract, even though we'll have a handful of people as a skeleton crew.
This is yet another reason I pushed hard for an all-GNU/Linux approach. Unfortunately, we discovered to our disappointment that GNU/Linux cannot yet handle the needs of a small financial institution like ours. You can chalk that up to lack of good bank-level accounting, payment processing, recovery (in the repossession sense, not tape backups), and loan origination/management software. Eh, well, the stuff for Windows isn't much better than doing it by hand yet either unless you're really big
Oh, yeah, what was my point? Right, if you buy into these agreements, what you save in convenience you pay in terms of contract inflexibility. Know what you're getting into at the get-go, that it's not something you can get out of or "transfer" (despite language to the contrary in the contract which is only for small numbers of machines to individual transferees with somewhat onerous record-keeping requirements), and that you're not really paying for ongoing support, but instead just for the licenses to use the product.
Makes me wish I could start up a new company using solely free software, making annual grants of $20K or so to free software developers...
Matthew P. Barnson
I learn what I think when I read what I write
If I sign a 12 month lease for a building and my company folded two months, I still owe rent for the next 10 months.
Just because the company goes out of business doesn't mean it automatically get's off the hook for its financial obligations.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Lois, this isn't my Batman glass. - Peter
And this would be a bad thing?
I drank what? -- Socrates
Really at fault are all those administrators that slept when the business classes went on in their education, if they didn't than they would know that spreading of all recources is one of the most important jobs of a company to spread their risks... Guess what, they all bought all their stuff from one brand, really smart... I hope lessons are learned a bit in this time and age, probably not, opertunists are blind most of the time... GPL gives most rights and security against afterwards claiming licence fees for end users. They enable a person to build a small business without being scared that he/she is bothered with the BSA animals. For that the developers had to but in a little bit, as i am both end user and developer dealing with GPL i am happy with the jurisdictional rest for most parties...
Nobody will drop their IT infrastructure right away. But once in a while, every company switches software systems. 10 years ago, you had DOS, OS/2, Windows 3.x, Novell, etc. 5 years ago, you had Windows NT, Windows 9x, etc. Now you've got Windows 2000/XP. Even within the Microsoft Windows 9x/NT product line, there are huge differences both from an end user point of view and from an infrastructure point of view.
No matter what you choose next time you upgrade, there will be transitioning costs. Even if you have to spend $20.000 more on software adapting and staff training when choosing Linux, you might save $50.000 on licenses. Do the math!
Your boss knows this, that's the really nice part. If the company's IT department can't save money by switching to open source, then they're all incompetent and should be fired ;-)
Better yet, how about we have a law saying the same thing about legislation. The problem is, the first time an unenforcable law _is_ passed and upheld, the "Anti-Unenforcable Law Act" itself becomes unenforceable, thus producing a legal paradox and Congress implodes, taking most of D.C. with it. Hmmm, not a bad idea, actually.
Dyolf Knip
Not bad... that would also invalidate every employment non-disclosure agreement I've ever seen...
All I can say is that if someone wants me to keep a secret after I no longer work for them they better PAY ME EVERY DAMN DAY I KEEP MY MY MOUTH SHUT or their secrets are going to fly fast and free.
Otherwise what is the bargain? I am no longer paid, BUT I have to keep their secrets quiet FOR FREE?!? That is totally fucked up.
No way in heck am I going to keep working for them if they refuse to keep paying me to work for them. FREE Non-Disclosure Agreements? Hell no. What a scam for babies and fools to keep another schmuck's business plan intact when they are not receiving any monetary reward in return.
That is as bad as the GOP=KGB WHORES that bend over everytime Bill Gates is bouncing around with a boner for their bondage. Some people love to be abused, but I refuse to play GOP=KGB WHORE for anyone especially Microsoft.
"Face it, a nation that maintains a 72% approval rating on George W. Bush is a nation with a very loose grip on reality.
The other point is that contracts usually get judged solely on what's contained inside of them, unless there's fraud, illegality, mistake, mutual recission, and a few other exceptions. So if you want to know what you've gotten yourself into, then RTFC. There are no state or federal laws (with a few small exceptions) that force you to agree to certain things, so it's all in the contract. And you don't need a law degree to understand them, either. Most of the legalese is shorthand so that broad concepts don't have to take pages and pages of explanation. Get a law dictionary (don't use Black's if you're a novice- it explains legal terms with legal terms, get one that uses layperson definitions) and go through it yourself. It might not be pleasant, but you'll understand more than you think you will.
IAAL
I like this idea - Slashdotters actually doing something other than crashing good sites. To really get this going however, someone with a little more Linux exposure than my-newbie-self ought to post a list of those companies that deserve a call. I believe somebody mentioned Adobe. Any other suggestions? Also emails work well, too - I can fire off a linuxspam to 40 companies faster than I can make a phone call. A little spontaneous organization (what, you don't read Prigogine?) and quite a few companies will get the clear message that a lot of people want Linux support on their products. I suddenly had the ultradork image in my head of the Linux community forming Voltron.
Their response will probably be, "We're suprised that the CTO of a mid-sized company is emailing us from 'babeluvr69@hotmail.com'."
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are not necessarily my own, as I've not yet had my medication today.
So if it's too much trouble, and they'd rather pay for maintenance that they're not going to use, then they should shut up and stop complaining.
/. about MS Licensing is fun in order to keep up with the evil empire's latest shenanigans, and to laugh at people who willingly put up with them. But I really have no sympathy for anyone who does, for no really good reason. If they're not willing to go through some trouble to free themselves of this abuse, they deserve all the abuse they get. At no time in history has liberty come without cost.
Honestly, if I really hate some vendor I'm a customer of, I simply dump them and go somewhere else. The only time I can't do this is if it's a utility monopoly, like the trash service. The phone system used to be like this too, but now I've dumped Qwest and gotten a cellphone, so I have no need for that monopoly anymore. MS is a monopoly too, in the sense that they have control of 90%+ of some markets, but just like Qwest vs. cellphones, there are alternatives out there for those willing to go through the trouble.
Reading articles here on
I've submitted an article with that date. I hope the /. crew prints it or something similar.
buy a cell phone w/ 2 year license
lose cell phone after 6 months
still pay remainig 1.5 years left in license...
How hard is that to understand?
This is easy to understand, and fair.
The cell phone network heavily subsidizes your purchase of the cell phone. equipment. They want you to commit in order to get that subsidy. You can't just buy the phone, and then switch service in 30 days, taking the phone that they mostly paid for over to their competitors network, paying the competitor for network service.
There is no such comparison here. If I'm going to pay for 3 years of upgrades, even if I pay today, then it seems fair that this covered computer should get three years of upgrades, even if said computer is in someone else's hands. You can't have it both ways. (Of course, Microsoft can because they have monopolost control -- the very definition of which is not the absence of competition, but one of control where they can get away with stuff that they could not in a non-monopoly situation.)
If I pay for 3 years of insurance, the covered computer gets coverage for three years. What is so different here? If I cancel the policy, then I stop paying, and stop getting coverage.
Why are you trying to defend Microsoft's unfair practice? (Just curious.)
If I'm 1 year into a 3 year payment and upgrade plan, then why wouldn't it be fair that the software on my computer today is fully licensed if I cancel the plan today. It is also fair that I should get no further upgrades under the plan. But not getting either of these is simply unfair. Remember this plan is upgrade advantage. Not acquisition. You still have to acquire the product before enrolling it in upgrade advantage. I stop paying in 2 months, I stop having any rights to upgrade at that time. The original acquisition, and any upgrades received thus far should be mine. Shouldn't they? (If everything were fair.)
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
If I sell my cell phone, I can transfer the agreement to someone else and have them take over the service.
OTOH, if I sell my computers licensed via this scheme, I have to pay off the standing costs *and* they need to buy new licenses for themselves.
Big difference.
In this case, you are proposing to them an alternate contract, which they must accept. Silence can never be a means of contract acceptance. For example, if you are sent a magazine without asking for it with the legal terminology "failure to cancel in 30 days will be construed as acceptance of a subscription and we will bill you," you can't legally be held to their billing request -- and in fact, by not answering you can continue to recieve the magazine for free.
Furthermore, if you sent the contract back to Microsoft, you couldn't use the software until you either recieved a reply or decided to agree to the EULA.
Sorry, but this post suffers from flawed legal reasoning: silence or the failure to respond cannot be considered legal acceptance of a contract. Check with any lawyer...
Statistically speaking, there's a 99.998% chance that my IQ is higher than yours. Get over it.
Run something else!
There arent that many killer apps not availiable on alternative OS any longer. On a average company you can come a long way with linux if you plan for linux from day one. Same with Apple albeit more expensive hardware is required. The only problem as i can see it is if a company is tailored to run on Microsoft software. With licenses like that it sure looks as if its is well worth the pain to migrate away to ABM.
Im sitting on a friends Windows right now and i feel it lacks a lot of things. The ONLY thing Windows has is more applications, as an OS it is just an empty shell.
HTTP/1.1 400
Why would they need to learn the Unix shell interface? If they can learn Windows, then they can certainly learn KDE or GNOME.