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.
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.
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.
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.
Stand up and fight as a citizen.
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
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
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.
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.