Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Backs Down on Windows 2000 EULA
nachoboy writes "After the fiasco surrounding the overly intrusive EULA for Windows 2000 SP3, it seems Microsoft has backed down a bit with the upcoming release of SP4. The section concerning automatic updates now states simply "You consent to the operation of these features, unless you choose to switch them off or not use them." The EULA then proceeds to list the five services liable to connect to the internet without explicit confirmation. A reference copy of the SP4 EULA may be found here. We can only hope for a similar move with Windows XP."
Do you actually believe Microsoft only spies on you if it's written in the EULA?
Does the EULA say that the Internet Explorer reports all web domains to the MSN search engine if it can't resolve them?
Oh, so you can turn it off alright. Does that change anything?
People don't trust Microsoft, and for good reasons.
I agree, this is a case of Microsoft actually listening. However, the reason can be discussed. I believe that they "listened", because it made no difference to them. It was more a case of miswording the EULA than actually wanting to add patches people wouldn't agree with. Ofcourse, this is just what I believe.
You consent to the operation of these features, unless you choose to switch them off or not use them.
Haha... Yes, I consent to the operation of features I bought and left on. I don't consent to those I turn off or don't use. But could I consent to the actions of those I turn off? If I don't operate them can I give permission for them to operate? This is such a wacky sentence it's funny. I give permission for the features which are turned on to operate and don't give permission to those which are turned off to operate. I know it's legal mumbo-jumbo, but could this statement ever not be true?
consent: 2. To indicate or express a willingness; to yield to guidance, persuasion, or necessity; to give assent or approval; to comply.
Developers: We can use your help.
I know I don't... I just go with the sheeple principle which goes something like this:
Windows is a very popular product, sold around the world to millions of people. They all seem happy with the licence agreement therefore I'll go along with them. Safety in numbers.
That is all.
Sorry, but my karma just ran over your dogma.
My virus scanner updates itself without my knowledge, as does my weather bar and e-mail client. How do I know they aren't doing nefarious things? But in the end, they make for a more convenient product.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
You need to really need to fine print on the EULA (especially those from Microsoft). The Service Packs, and also the agreement, are considered cumlative of all prior SPs. Service Pack 3 "contains" Service Pack 2, as well as the agreement held withing. For example, if SP2 had a CD Player v 1.0 that cataloged every CD you played and sent it to Micosoft, and 1.1 removed this feature, you still agreed to allow it with version 1.1 because it's a revision number. If it was CD Music Player ver 1.0 (a completely different product) then it wouldn't matter. Service packs aren't considered seperate products to Microsoft, especially licenses. You buy Windows XP workstation and you actually receive a license for every prior (non-retired) workstation product, provided you uninstall XP before you use, say, Windows 2000 workstation.
Thanks,
Bruce
I mean, MS may be friggin' in the riggin', but the way SP3's EULA was writen was a bit vague...so I assumed (privacy and the law bein gon my mind) that this is what they meant in the first place but didn't bother to express it very well. Either way, I'm pleased.
Bullshit. Windows Update never "decides" to install drivers. The only thing WU ever installs or selects by itself are critical updates, which never include drivers.
I don't think you understand Microsoft's tactic. They ALWAYS did the same thing:
1) Start with something free or an upgrade.
2) Incrementally and slowly add more and more restrictive claims. Auto-update, DRM, etc.
3) If the people start complaining too much, roll-back to previous claims, which isn't much better.
4) Wait for a while.
5) Go to 2.
This has been MS tactics for as long as I can remember. So, I don't think we should claim victory right now.
That seems exactly plausible.
MS can already put anything they want on your machine because the software is closed source. The ability to do it automatically is pretty trivial actually in the bigger picture.
The last EULA was almost certainly poorly choosen. That's all. They wanted the legal right to update your machine assuming you choose to use the feature. IE, they dont want lawsuits if people enable auto-updating and then find that something or some 3rd party app didnt work.
Speculation, but this pretty much confirms that the SP3 service pack was just a bit poorly done.
Does it matter that MS has changed the wording around in their EULA for win2k? They are still going to try to force their will upon you. Look at the Media player 9 EULA. It gives M$ the right to remove "content" they beleive to be violating a copyright holder. Just when did M$ get the damn power to be police of the world? Where was I when that power was granted? There is no need for any of this garbage. There are laws to protect copyrights, let the copyright holders use the legal system just like the rest of us have to. Just don't give in to the MS FUD or the MS monoply.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
That is surprisingly common. Most software vendors of size do not allow benchmarking. Alot of it stems from purposefully bad benchmarking that is designed to skew results. Big vendors like Oracle and MS have a lot to lose from jury-rigged benchmarks skewed to give one side an advantage.
On the other hand, some software package must be slower, that's just how it works. So they have a lot to lose just on the pure facts of the matter too.
great, i can do that. god knows i've turned off that network popup messanger a few dozen times. some reason though 'stop' and 'disable' don't stick. after a week or 2 they are back on. so if i don't turn of the hidden 'turn service back on' service, does that mean i'm consenting to the ones it turns back on? and does that include the ones sp5 will turn back on?
No offense, but this kind of statement really hard to believe when the company name isn't given for verification. Not that it's impossible or a bad idea, but I'm guessing more like improbable for a 'board of directors' for any company that's realistically large enough to have a true 'board of directors' to recognize the inherent dangers of their software eula's at this point in history. Even though some companies understand M$ is trying to position their poisoned dagger under the company's metaphorical ribcage for the best position to hold the company hostage, the company is attempting to do the same thing to any of their clients in any cases possible. Thus they at least understand M$'s position, whereas most of these out of touch old men don't understand the true position of free software. Summed up, most companies distrust M$, but distrust open source even more. (even if it's completely unfounded, you're not dealing with rational thinking, you're dealing with people that are fed and driven by greed, and free software runs totally askew of their ideals)
I should imagine that Microsoft's legal people thought that the original clause may make Microsoft liable for any security vulnerabilities in components that connect to the internet without consent.
The new clause tells the user that the feature can be disabled, passing all responsibility from Microsoft to the user.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Stand up and fight as a citizen.
Posted this as AC previously as an error. Sorry.
I don't think you understand Microsoft's tactic. They ALWAYS did the same thing:
1) Start with something free or an upgrade.
2) Incrementally and slowly add more and more restrictive claims. Auto-update, DRM, etc.
3) If the people start complaining too much, roll-back to previous claims, which isn't much better.
4) Wait for a while.
5) Go to 2.
This has been MS tactics for as long as I can remember. So, I don't think we should claim victory right now.
That's about as effective as saying:
"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand
Shouldn't WU be smart enough to automatically order updates according to dependency? Even Debian's apt is smart enough to do this, so I'd expect MS to be able to figure this out.
No, EULAs are licenses, and therefore legal documents. Legal documents cannot be copyrighted.
"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand
If Microsoft actually did what it says, you would not have to turn your computer off to keep it from spying on you, but you would not be able to listen to music, bank, check school and government records, watch movies or just about anything. Of course, M$ is a dishonest company, so we can imagine it will store all the information until you say, "uncle root me!", and then send it all up.
This is a natural continuation of M$ practices. They already kept lists of songs and movies, now they will have your explicit permision to collect them. No, they did not really tell you what they were going to collect, they just told you that the features will have to talk to work. We can imagine they will say whatever M$ wants them to.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
-mcgrew
I will say "this is good" rather than "too little too late". You've got to encourage this kind of turnaround from the world's most pervasive software company.
Unless you're an OSS zealot who hopes MS's bad behavior will be their downfall.
Half the time when M$crap installs automatic updates it breaks something. Look at how often M$ has to recall a patch or service pack. Their products and processes are flawed. I cannot rely on the fact that when I come in the morning that my machine will function like the day before. Businesses need for their machines to reliably function from day to day. M$ doesn't give a rat's ass about the general user. They care only about their image. When was the last time you heard that one of IBM's patches for their mainframes had to be recalled? It doesn't happen. IBM has products that were develeped properly and has the processes to make sure that a patch won't have unintended consequenses.
I am an independent consultant, and have been making my living riping out failed M$crap and replacing it with Linux. This has certaintly picked up after M$ released their licensing extortion schemes. The amount of clients I have that are even considering Windows Server 2003 can be counted on one hand. Usually when I explain to them the pros and cons of going with M$, they quickly reconsider. The next question they ask is if I have any other clients that have converted to Linux that are happy. After they talk to them, its usually an immediate go-ahead.
Quit playing Monopoly with Bill.
Linux - of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Most EULA's start by claiming that the software is provided with no warranty. In most of Europe this is not permitted, something must be fit for the purpose.
Claiming that it's a licence and not a sale doesn't help either, many countries treat anything that is sold as a product as a normal sale and subject to normal laws on purchasing.
Has anyone ever actually read an EULA anyway?
As a citizen, I have no power. I couldn't convince him - not even me and a thousand of my friends - to vote one way or the other on a piece of legislation to curb Microsoft's behavior. Legisliation, incidentally, that was probably drafted by lobbyists for Microsoft.
As a consumer, I have plenty of power. When I ask a vendor to sell me that system without an OS, or to sell it to me without a hard drive, they can either sell it to me on my terms, or I'll turn around and take my purchase to a vendor who will.
How is this official? It's not even on Microsoft's website. Sheesh.
I think I'm going to make-up an SP5 EULA and post it on my site, and then submit it as a Slashdot story. Yeah, that's the ticket!
Not All Who Wander Are Lost
Perhaps it may have seemed to MS that it was a good idea, but many institutions such as hospitals strictly control what is on their computers, and the EULA made it legally impossible for them to use SP3.
No,the point of Windows Update is that you aren't supposed to have to think about it. Joe User doesn't need to understand why the video driver has to be updated first, and in fact Update is supposed to enforce proper ordering. Isn't one of the big arguments against my grandmother using linux that she couldn't possibly understand all those fine details? Oh, but when we are talking about Windows it's different? At least with RPMs and similar systems I get told that there are missing dependencies. My first notification with Update is usually a failure to boot after the install. Wheee!
SP4 is not HIPAA compliant. I am going through this with one of my clients. The lawyers that I'm working with are telling me that because service packs include previous service packs, agreeing to SP4 means that you also agree to SP3 legal terms. In order for SP4 to be HIPAA compliant it must specifically revoke any HIPAA onerous terms in SP3. SP4 doesn't do this. Basically the law takes from SP3 things that are not dealt with in SP4. IANAL but this is what the client's lawyers have come up with. My client is now stuck and is in the planning stages of ripping out Win2K and replacing it with Linux.
Quit playing Monopoly with Bill.
Linux - of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Uh-huh. Name me one company w/ over 50 million gross sales whose shareholders actually have a say in the Board of Directors. Typically a commanding percentage of the stock is held by a very few players and they hand-pick the board. Even trying to mount a proxy vote for an alternate candidate is beyond the financialand organizational means of the small shareholders.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
A consumer holds no power, a citizen does.
Bullshit. A vote that goes into a cash register is just as powerful as one that goes into a ballot box.
Microsoft does not want to control the world. They just want to make money. Controlling the world is one strategy that would allow them to keep making money yes, but that doesn't change the company's core reason for existing.
This is meaningless. Of the millions who use Windows, very few will read the EULA closely enough to realize that there are spy services running, let alone know how to disable them.
Nothing real will come of this until there is a real and major abuse by MS, and the story is picked up by the major media. Then there'll be congressional hearings and 'something will be done' - most likely something useless.
I work at a small ( about 5 devs ) company, and one of the projects I have worked on was a facility to update the code OTA. We recognized that we would need to be able to deal with the concept of prerequisites ( dont install B unless A is present ). And we did it.
Forgoing all the above,
Why should the end user be responsible for parsing the prereqs and figuring out what goes first? Why should you have to control the order?
A big "world class" software developement organization, full of "the best" people couldnt do better?
I'm as tired of the "microsoft can do no wrong" as I am of the "microsoft can do no right".
emt 377 emt 4
>and NO LINUX support vendor will come close to
>matching what M$ and IBM provide in personnel
>and equipment support.
last i checked, IBM spewed a lot of linux support.
... hi bingo
"NO LINUX support vendor will come close to matching what M$ and IBM provide in personnel and equipment support."
ummm you DO realize IBM IS A LINUX VENDOR don't you?
Aprox. 6 months ago my wife's ex husband asked me a little bit about Linux. He advised me that IBM was truely planning to eventually phase out EVERYTHING and go all Linux and wanted my input (he is an IBM exec, was a programmer long ago, not 100% sure what he does now other than that it is a 12 word title, literally, and he makes 7 figures). Now I hate the sob and he hates me, but I respect that he might have a handle on IBM business strategy.