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."

Comments

Too little, too late...

[krray]

This may be too little too late for us. With the release of SP3 for Windows 2000 "Professional" we went to a "code freeze" with Microsoft Windows (among other things).

With this SP we also decided it was time to completely ditch them from operations and have been rolling out Linux and Mac OS.X workstations as existing systems reached their EOL.

Fortunately we may actually use SP4 for the existing Windows boxes (about 35% left now) -- but our budget for Microsoft products has been placed at -0- per the board of directors.

Too little, too late... (fp :)

Re:Too little, too late...

[krray]

It didn't take us two years to decide Windows is full of security holes and problems. I personally knew that with Windows 95 (never deployed here -- stuck with WFW3.11).

The remains Windows boxes are primarily used for AutoCAD work. I've yet to come across a product that comes close to what we would expect for other platforms -- the exception being a outside-our-needs $40K package.

Those remaining Windows boxes have long ago been on a segmented private subnet with NO ACCESS what-so-ever to the Internet for obvious security reasons.

Frankly -- I don't give a rats ass what the rest of the world does (to a point -- we still need to share data). The "TCO" for Windows is a hell of a lot higher than Microsoft would like you to think it is. A whole LOT.

Even when Windows was the #1 desktop on our network there has never been one (1) virus infection or outbreak. Of course Outlook and Explorer were banned from day one (which helped :).

I'm still amazed by the Windows weenies out there -- isn't it interesting that a guy like me doesn't like Windows? 20 years experience "in the business", multiple computer science degrees along with accounting and business management for that matter... I like Netware, BSD, Solaris, Linux, OS/2, BeOS, and OS X among others -- it's just so obviously how fundamentally flawed Windows is.

But I'm sure I don't know shit or what I'm talking about. Yeah, that's it.
Too funny.

Re:Too little, too late...

[cristofer8]

I really don't think that MS put the original clause in the EULA so that they could spy on your computer or download evil top secret DRM goblins into your computer while you sleep. I think that it referred to exactly what it did: downloading updates from winupdate in the background, and was just worded poorly. Since some (a few slashdotters) complained, they changed it to terms that, for their purposes, mean the exact same thing, but don't piss off all 50 slashdotters who actually paid for their copy of windows.

Re:Too little, too late...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Too little, too late...

[deaddrunk]

Or "I don't like Windows based on comparison with half a dozen alternatives that I have used on a regular basis (i.e. not merely a home Linux network that you can connect Windows boxes to) and therefore in my professional opinion Windows is a mess"

Or is that too difficult to understand Mr. Troll?

Re:Too little, too late...

[errxn]

Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.

Like, uhh, not using Hotmail for your email account, f'rinstance?

I bet SCO is behind this...

[Anonymous Coward]

somehow.

Wow

[Cackmobile]

To all the people who say what can we do; Here is a perfect example of the power of the people. We the consumers hold the power. We can stand up and fight corporate greed. From here we need to demand better software with less bugs.

I hate posting about M$. Last time i got modded to Flamebait. DOH!!!

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate posting about M$. Last time i got modded to Flamebait. DOH!!!

Apparently you aren't the only person who hates your postings about Microsoft, then.

Re:Wow

[muffen]

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.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Wow

[danheskett]

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.

Re:Wow

[teamhasnoi]

A consumer holds no power, a citizen does.

Stand up and fight as a citizen.

Re:Wow

[Karhgath]

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.

Re:Wow

[TopShelf]

While this may be a bit overstated, it does seem like MS is paying more attention to customer feedback these days. Note the changes made to mollify small and medium-sized businesses related to software licenses, and the recent price cuts made to Office and SQL Server's Developer Edition. The recent controversy about the extreme measures they are taking to compete with Linux in the enterprise also points to a company that is feeling pressure to preserve its customer base. That's an entirely different posture than boldly taking on new areas and expanding market share. The next couple years (as the economy strengthens and IT spending resumes) should prove very interesting indeed...

Re:Wow

[Tackhead]

> A consumer holds no power, a citizen does.

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.

Re:Wow

[pVoid]

I think you are watching too many x-files.

I think the previous EULA was worded that way so people were forced (by law) to update their machines, and not leave them unpatched for months. I think it was made that way so that Moft didn't end up with lawsuits (or bad rep) saying their machines weren't safe.

(I think ideally, they wanted all of the machines on the net to get patches as soon as they came out, so that once a bug was announced on a full disclosure list or the such, if they deemed it dangerous, they could get around to avoiding it).

But in the end, it comes down to an 'I think' versus 'you think' situation. And I think you are watching too many x-files.

(your argument of closed sourcedness is bs... have you read each and every line of source in your linux kernel? - trojan's are very easily detectable without source code, in fact they are more detectable without source code: via network analysis... if Moft were to put trojans in their updates, you would get 42 stories a day on /. about it - plus their respective duplicates)

Re:Wow

[poot_rootbeer]

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.

Published benchmarks still "illegal?"

[mgcsinc]

This is a nice concession by microsoft, but what of the weird restrictions on benchmarking alluded to in the older slashdot article?

'You may not disclose the results of any benchmark test of the .NET Framework component of the OS Components to any third party without Microsoft's prior written approval.'

Re:Published benchmarks still "illegal?"

[danheskett]

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.

Re:Published benchmarks still "illegal?"

[mgcsinc]

Video card manufacturers could do this to keep from spending half their man hours on programming their drivers to trick benchmarks. Then again, this wouldn't fly to well, would it... If there's anything worse than feew people buying your product because it benchmarks poorly, it's no one buying your product because the industry press hates you.

As if the EULA mattered

[Fefe]

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.

Re:As if the EULA mattered

[Anonymous Coward]

"Does the EULA say that the Internet Explorer reports all web domains to the MSN search engine if it can't resolve them?"

Yeah maaaan! Microsoft - and therefore the government - now has a huge list of misspelled and non-existant website addresses! Just imagine the kind of horrific infringements of privacy that can take place now!! It doesn't bear thinking about, does it!

Re:As if the EULA mattered

[A_Non_Moose]

Oh, so you can turn it off alright. Does that change anything?

Yes, well, until the next security update, bugfix or service pack... ...hey, waitaminute....

(ever notice how the msn redirect gets put back, outlook express {I've got a kixscript to kill it} and a few other annoyances every update?)

You are correct, IMO.

Re:As if the EULA mattered

[Anonymous Coward]

>They also have your IP address

Every site i`ve ever visited has my IP address.

>time of day

MY TIME OF DAY?! OH MY GOD!

>frequency of Internet use

They could just set up shop as an ISP. So could the government for that matter.

> possibly your location (via traceroute)

Now your pushing it.

>and what kinds of websites you are looking for

And, as i`ve pointed out, how good your spelling is, given that only incorrect ones go to microsoft for resolution - and then only if you have the feature enabled in the free software they`ve supplied and which you`ve chosen to use.

>Based on the websites, they can even infer your
age group, sex, and "secret habits".

Perhaps I can interest you in one of these:
http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html

Re:As if the EULA mattered

[Artemis P. Fonswick]

God forbid people do marketing research on your info! Oh no! Whatever will we do?!

If this shit goes into a database it just becomes another dot on a graph. There isn't some guy sitting at the MSN office saying "Hey look! pmz is looking at deep anal porn at 3 AM again! Let's go to his house and rape his mom!"

I've said it before and I have a feeling I'll be saying it until I'm lying in my grave...Nobody cares about you! They're not sitting in your closet watching you surf the internet in your spiderman underoos. You still have your precious privacy!!

Now what? You don't want to be a target of some ad campaign?? I only wish I was targeted more instead of being bombarded with those fucking X10 camera ads everytime I go to a webpage or tampon commercials everytime I turn on the TV.

Re:As if the EULA mattered

[Anonymous Coward]

ipconfig /flushdns

the catch is....

[eegad]

The only way to "switch them off" is with a pair of scissors on your power cable.

Re:the catch is....

[praedor]

You could link your 2000/XP box to a linux firewall and set iptables to drop any and all traffic concerning certain M$ spyware/snooping/DRM crap. Prevent media player from sending anything to M$ to get around that snooping/IP police force nonsense they add.

Block the ports that M$ tries to use, block offensive traffic. Screw the EULA.

Re:the catch is....

[ncc74656]

Prevent media player from sending anything to M$ to get around that snooping/IP police force nonsense they add.

Better yet, use Windows Media Player 6.4. Even after you "upgrade" to later versions, it's still there...even on this WinXP SP1 box I'm using right now. It plays all of the same stuff that the later versions play (at least I haven't found anything that wouldn't play), the interface is much less obnoxious, and it doesn't "phone home" every time you start it up. You should be able to find it as c:\Program Files\Windows Media Player\mplayer2.exe. Use right-click and "Open With..." to associate media files with it instead of wmplayer.exe.

Legalese

[truthsearch]

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.

Re:Legalese

[poot_rootbeer]

You consent to the operation of these features, unless you choose to switch them off or not use them.

This statement is not as idiotic as some posters are interpreting it as being.

It's basically saying that the onus is on the customer if they wish to opt out of operating certain features. Let's say the service pack contains an "automatic windows update" service that runs once a night and automatically downloads and installs the latest system patches.

By installing the service pack, you're under no obligation to run that service. You can take it out of the list of active services if you want. What you CAN'T do, the line of thinking goes, is leave it running and then sue Microsoft on the grounds that you don't want it to be running. It's you job to hit the off switch, not theirs.

(IANAL and who knows whether such a EULA is enforceable anyway)

EULAs are a PITA

[wiggys]

I wonder how many people who actually bother to read the licence agreement (15%?) actually understand it (5%?).

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.

Not a big deal?

[Sheetrock]

Most people I know using Windows 2000 just blow past their EULAs without reading them. What was so onerous? I didn't think it was out of the ordinary for Media Player to fetch new DRM information with codec updates if the old DRM was cracked, and really didn't care because I hardly use it (I prefer RealOne's encoding.)

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.

Fear not!

[jkrise]

You will be liberated with Service Pack 5. Until then, use SCO.

so would SP4 meet HIPAA guidelines?

[clarkc3]

I remember there was a discusion about SP3 and where I worked that was one of the main reasons we held off installing it on our machines

Re:great

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently Windows Upbreak decided to update a bunch of stuff that required the new video driver before it updated the video driver itself.

Apparently you never looked at Windows Update enough to realize that you can control the order of the installation. Want to do driver updates first? No problem. Oh wait, it is easier to complain and blame Microsoft.

Retroactively?

[ptaff]

Is the agreement on SP4 only touching the technology modified by this service pack?

If I agreed on SP3, can a further SP change my rights?

I mean, I already said yes to all that invasive stuff.

Seems like a PR-move for me.

I figured that's what they initially meant anyways

[fudgefactor7]

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.

This may help in the future

[teamhasnoi]

Removing evil from 2000/XP.

I can't wait til this is done, as I use 98lite for the pentium 233 here at work.

Speedy goodness, and I feel a bit better about the saftey of my midget porn.

Does this have anything to do with SP4? I don't know. I just wonder what SP4 will break.

Re:This may help in the future

[HopeUnknown]

Removing evil from 2000/XP.

You can't remove evil from Windows, it's a feature of the Operating System. Kinda like Internet Explorer.

Re:This may help in the future

[Jack Comics]

XP Lite is complete and total vaporware. It's been promised for *years* now, and absolutely nothing new has been said or seen about it since it was originally announced in 2001.

The project probably turned out to be bigger than the software coders could chew, as removing the crud from 9x is a far easier task than removing it from 2000 & XP.

In other words, expect XP Lite to be released the same day as Duke Nukem Forever.

Migrating from Linux to XP

[dfn5]

We can only hope for a similar move with Windows XP.

Yup, this has been the only stumbling block for me to move from Linux to Windows XP .... That and it costing money.

Re:Migrating from Linux to XP

[clonebarkins]

Yup, this has been the only stumbling block for me to move from Linux to Windows XP .... That and it costing money.

Windows XP costs money? Where did you download it from?

Re:great

[drwtsn32]

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.

Copyright?

[truthsearch]

Out of curiosity, isn't the EULA automatically protected under copyright law like everything else? Even without a copyright statement attached to it I'm not sure anyone is allowed to reproduce it without permission. I think it would have to explicitly give permission in the doc.

Re:Copyright?

[clonebarkins]

Out of curiosity, isn't the EULA automatically protected under copyright law like everything else? Even without a copyright statement attached to it I'm not sure anyone is allowed to reproduce it without permission. I think it would have to explicitly give permission in the doc.

No, EULAs are licenses, and therefore legal documents. Legal documents cannot be copyrighted.

Re:Copyright?

[clonebarkins]

Only if they constitute a real contract. Thus, the old debate over the enforcability of EULAs continues...

So all we have to do is get Microsoft to claim copyright over their EULAs, which would then negate them as legitimate binding contracts.... Now, how do we accomplish that!

This is nice

[pulse2600]

I seriously believe that this is the result of constant pressure and bad PR Microsoft has been getting from techies like us. Even powerful, monopolistic companies like Microsoft must respond to the dissent of the public. We must continue to discuss our grievances while educating techies and non-techies alike about how things like EULAs and buggy software can affect our lives. This is the only way companies will be forced to make better products and treat their customers better.

Re:Does Microsoft still support Win2K??

[MtViewGuy]

According to Microsoft's position, they will officially support Windows 2000 Professional/Server right through the end of 2005.

This means they will still have the signed driver program and WHQL certification program in place for the next 30 months. I expect Microsoft to offer at least up to Service Pack 6 for Win2K before the official support program ends at the end of 2005.

Besides, Windows 2000 Professional is a very nice OS, with very good stability and decent security if you apply all the proper security patches (something that should be done on all operating systems on a regular basis).

Does this really matter?

[AstroDrabb]

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.

Liability

[jabbadabbadoo]

"..., IN NO EVENT SHALL MICROSOFT OR ITS
SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL,
INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, INDIRECT, OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER ..."

What a cumbersome way of saying NO LIABILITY.

(the text you're reading now is just to fool /.'s lameness filter which claims that I'm yelling due to CAPS - well, actually it's Microsoft who's yelling.)

passing the buck....

[oliverthered]

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.

Re:great

[RealityMogul]

SP3 killed my machine. Here's a tip, don't play minesweeper while waiting for the service pack to install, you won't be able to boot again.

Who is .Bruce Perens?

[Anonymous Coward]

And how did you get the people who did your birth certificate to put the dot there?

Interesting, interesting...

[MsGeek]

They are backing down on the "All Your Base Are Belong To Us" EULA. Good. I'm impressed. This means that I can actually update my last lone Windows box. Right now, basically I have my Windows machine isolated from the Internet because of the security issues.

I still think that eventually MS will have to come out and admit that there are fundamental flaws at the heart of their security infrastructure, and basically make the same admission they made about NT4 about all their NT codebase OSes. But it's good that the patches are now available without having to bend and spread too far.

Someone mentioned the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in another post. I suspect that is the motivation behind the EULA change. With all those health insurance companies, doctors offices and hospitals screaming bloody murder about SP3 leaving them open for citation under HIPAA, they had to do this.

Certainly consumer outrage isn't the issue. That has never motivated MS before.

Re:Interesting, interesting...

[msoftsucks]

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.

Did they remove the "lose your soul" clause?

[Nova Express]

Have they taken out that clause that states "By opening the shrinkwrap on this Microsoft product, you agree to assign to Microsoft, in perpetuity, your immortal soul. You also agree that Microsoft may sell, sublicense, or reassign your soul to any third party, including but not limited to individuals, other corporations, government entities, demons, spirits and other supernatural beings, God and/or Satan, and any other powers or dominions, at Microsoft's sole discretion."?

Man, I always hated that clause, but at least they took out the bit about your firstborn child...

Stupid Legal Bull....

[clonebarkins]

"You consent to the operation of these features, unless you choose to switch them off or not use them."

That's about as effective as saying:

• You agree to have sex with me unless you say no.
• You agree to drink this soda, unless you set the cup down.
• You agree to bend over and let me anally violate you unless you have objections.

Re:Stupid Legal Bull....

[TheAwfulTruth]

Yes, isn't it rediculous? There was nothing wrong with the old wording. People freaked out over nothing, forcing MS to put new wording it that is completely stupid. Well I guess it now matches the brain power of the people that complained... It's why every car ad has to have "Professional driver on closed course, do not try this yourself" on it. Apparently no one is smart enough to think for themselves any more (That or have completely given up responsibility for their own actions. "I saw it on TV so I thought it was legal!")

Makes me sad.

Read up on Corporations...

[cnelzie]

Any corporation, no matter how large or small has a Board of Directors. The board is made up of people that are voted into positions, by the shareholders.

In the case of a really small company with only a few shareholders, those shareholders (if even only 2 or 3 people) will typically make up the board.

Re:Read up on Corporations...

[cellocgw]

Any corporation, no matter how large or small has a Board of Directors. The board is made up of people that are voted into positions, by the shareholders.

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.

Re:Read up on Corporations...

[Reziac]

"The board is made up of people that are voted into positions, by the shareholders."

Actually, that's not how it works. What happens is that whenever there's a vacancy, the existing Board of Directors nominates a candidate. Then the board issues voting materials (an info packet and a ballot) to shareholders, where you can either vote for the candidate, against the candidate, or in some cases abstain.

Now, these ballots are interesting in that FAILURE to vote usually means that your ballot is DEFAULTED to a vote FOR whatever the BoD has *already recommended* (and in 33 years of owning stock, I've never seen one that recommended a vote against any prospective or seated Board member). With such ballots, if you don't vote, it does NOT become a null vote; if you want to abstain, you have to specifically vote that way and return the ballot.

This is the procedure for seating new members, for reconfirming old members which is normally done every few years, routine issues like confirming selection of an auditing firm, and issues placed on the table by stockholders (which in my observation are uniformly nutty and are uniformly recommended against by every BoD).

Re:I figured that's what they initially meant anyw

[donutello]

If you're not capable of knee-jerk opinions based on strong prejudices you don't belong here. This is Slashdot. Please take your well thought out opinions and go elsewhere.

I'm impressed

[UnknowingFool]

that someone actually had the patience and will to read the whole EULA. I felt my strength slipping after the 5th paragraph. Also I kept hearing:
"Resistance if futile. You will be assimilated.
Resistance if futile. You will be assimilated.
. . ."

Hannibal Lectar: "Love the title"

[A_Non_Moose]

Microsoft Backs Down on Windows 2000 EULA

Yes, but did it hurt when they did?

let's check that assumption. Yep, that's valid.

[Erris]

You claim, " The only way to "switch them off" is with a pair of scissors on your power cable." That might be right. Let's look at the "features", shall we?

• Windows Updater - they could make this the only way to keep your computer running. They did say they wanted to "obsolete" their administrators.
• Web Content Features - totally confusing about what's activated by default, but this has the potential to make the web unveiwable.
• Digital Certificates. Something called, "Auto Root" seems to be required for your computer to be trusted by Microsoft. Not using it may break all encryption schemes. Fully buzzword complient.
• Windows Media Digital Rights Management. - If you play "secure content", Microsoft wants to know about it and put all sorts of third party files on your computer. It's so complicated sounding I doubt they will keep their promise of you being able to listen to or watch anyhing without them knowing. It's strange they would care, as they have been proven to.
• Windows Media Player - content again! It wants to check for "codecs" that you might not have. As if! So, how much do you want to bet that the only way to get these magical codecs, you have to use all of the above "features".

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.

Re:Not as good as it seems

[bjorng]

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.

Not according to M*ft's legal brochureware. They claim that using an XP license to install w2kpro is a violation. We had to look that up at work a while ago. (IANAL, though.)

Encouraging

[porkface]

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.

Re:Not as good as it seems

[sheldon]

"Not according to M*ft's legal brochureware. They claim that using an XP license to install w2kpro is a violation. We had to look that up at work a while ago. "

It depends on how you obtained the product. Volume Licensing users automatically have this right.. (search for downgrade)

Retail purchasers are supposed to ask for permission.

Who cares about MS License Agreements?

[HermanAB]

In many (most?) states, it is a sale, not a license, so the EULA is moot.

Re:Who cares about MS License Agreements?

[mhifoe]

Is there anywhere in the world where an EULA such as this would actually be enforceable?

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?

Re:Not as good as it seems

[Yankovic]

This is incorrect. More recent licenses (such as the one on SP4) supercede previous agreements. This section from the EULA clearly identifies this:

19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This EULA (including any addendum or amendment to this EULA which is included with the Product) and the CAL or TS CAL (if applicable) are the entire agreement between you and Microsoft relating to the Product and the support services (if any) and they supersede all prior or contemporaneous oral or written communications, proposals and representations with respect to the Product or any other subject matter covered by this EULA.

Uh-huh

[kiwimate]

Posted Anonymous Coward

Makes me feel very comfortable insofar as the veracity of the rest of your post is concerned.

Do post some more details...for example:

* What is your core "real business"?
* How big is your company?
* How big is your network?
* How long has your company been established?

You get the gist...really, just some sort of detail that, say, might lead me to believe this is anything other than a rather poor troll.

I love 2a, by the way. How did you present your offer to Microsoft? (Was it a formal business proposition, or an open letter posted on the local "MS-SUX" mailing list?) To whom did you present it? What were they supposed to get out of it? (My goodness, I'm just shocked that Microsoft wasn't falling over itself to take up your little proposal involving a whopping ten -- count 'em! -- workstations.) To whom did you present the same Linux-server-based contract?

(And it still gets modded up as Interesting. Good ol' Slashdot...)

Uhm, official SP4 EULA?!

[delus10n0]

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!

Windows Media Player 9 alters my files?

[eMartin]

I installed WMP 9 the other day, and the first thing I did was go through the settings to turn off all the "features" that I don't need.

One thing that I found interesting though, is that I unchecked the "Update my music files (WMA and MP3 files) by retrieving missing media information from the Internet" (which has an accompanying help link that explains that it would be used to add information to both the media library database and tags within the actual files), yet all the files that I played in WMP were actually still modified. Their modification dates and file sizes changed.

Now that is enough for me to decide not to use their software for playing my music, because the way that I see it, any info that is used by the media library (such as song ratings, number of times played, etc.) belongs in the separate database that it uses, and my files should not be changed unless I click a "save" or "apply" button somewhere.

So does anyone know what is being added to these files by WMP? I don't like the idea that it is changing my files just to add some stupid "This audio file was played by Windows Media Player" tag.

Re:great

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

What about the DRM Clause? Still awful!

[Anonymous Coward]

Under this clause, they can:

1) Record what you're using their and 3rd party
software for

2) Remotely retrieve this information

3) Remotely disable features of your computer

If that isn't intrusive, then what is?

d. Windows Media Digital Rights Management.
Content providers are using the digital rights management
technology for Windows Media contained in this Software
("WM-DRM") to protect the integrity of their content
("Secure Content") so that their intellectual property,
including copyright, in such content is not misappropriated.
Portions of this Software and third party applications such
as media players use WM-DRM to play Secure Content
("WM-DRM Software"). If the WM-DRM Software's security
has been compromised, owners of Secure Content ("Secure
Content Owners") may request that Microsoft revoke
the WM-DRM Software's right to copy, display and/or
play Secure Content. Revocation does not alter the
WM-DRM Software's ability to play unprotected content.
A list of revoked WM-DRM Software is sent to your
computer whenever you download a license for Secure
Content from the Internet. Microsoft may, in
conjunction with such license, also download
revocation lists onto your computer on behalf of
Secure Content Owners. Secure Content Owners
may also require you to upgrade some of the WM-DRM
components in this Software ("WM-DRM Upgrades") before
accessing their content. When you attempt to play
such content, WM-DRM Software built by Microsoft
will notify you that a WM-DRM Upgrade is required
and then ask for your consent before the WM-DRM
Upgrade is downloaded. WM-DRM Software built
by third parties may do the same. If you decline
the upgrade, you will not be able to access content
that requires the WM-DRM Upgrade; however, you will
still be able to access unprotected content and
Secure Content that does not require the upgrade.
WM-DRM features that access the Internet, such
as acquiring new licenses and/or performing a
required WM-DRM Upgrade, can be switched off. When
these features are switched off, you will still be able
to play Secure Content if you have a valid license for
such content already stored on your computer.

Re:What about the DRM Clause? Still awful!

[unDiWahn]

"1) Record what you're using their and 3rd party
software for"

I didn't see any reference to that in the clip you posted. The closest segment was "Microsoft may, in
conjunction with such license, also download
revocation lists onto your computer on behalf of
Secure Content Owners. " which is simply Microsoft 'turning off' any software you've cracked -- " If the WM-DRM Software's security
has been compromised, owners of Secure Content ("Secure
Content Owners") may request that Microsoft revoke
the WM-DRM Software's right to copy, display and/or
play Secure Content."

Ok, 2) falls under the same catagory.

"3) Remotely disable features of your computer"

Only features that companies select to be disabled. And, specifically, only DRM enabled software for DRM content -- which does not prevent you from from using non-DRM content either.

Actually, the clip you posted was a relieving read -- Microsoft's EULA for DRM is mostly non-invasive. It says nothing about accessing content on your computer, and specifies that DRM information will only be transfered when you request a DRM licence. Seems fair to me.

Re:great

[jpmorgan]

Oh wait, it is easier to complain and blame Microsoft.

You're new here, aren't you?

Disclosing URLs IS dangerous

[arth1]

It's not that easy to dismiss.

Example: A VPN user enters https://user@password:internalserver.company.com
However, the VPN line has gone down and the user happens to be on the Internet, where internalserver.company.com doesn't resolve. Or the local DNS server might have a temporary hiccup. Or a variety of other reasons might cause the lookup to fail.
IE then proceeds to send the URL to the search engine of choice. NOT good.

real business is not an AC...

[Archfeld]

Err 18 to 22 million is small time money as far as 'real business' is concerned. Don't get me wrong I am happy to see linux get a bigger market share and a foothold in business, but we do 18-22 million about every 60 minutes (projected year end revenues run in the 100 billions), and NO LINUX support vendor will come close to matching what M$ and IBM provide in personnel and equipment support. I hope things keep growing so that maybe someday it will happen but for now REAL BUSINESS, ie fortune 500 and better are NOT running their back offices on LINUX OR OSX, and as a former unix admin the thought of the general (L)user community having a unix/linux desktop terrifies me.
With the release of 2003 for priemier customers the performance gap is going to grow. I hope that Linus going to work full time on the kernel for a year will help close the gap on high end scalability.
On a side note we did tell SendMail where to go and are now moving to an OSS setup :)

Re:real business is not an AC...

[EnderWiggnz]

>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.

Re:real business is not an AC...

[shaitand]

"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.

Pixar is publicly traded

[kels]

there's no reason a corp. can't stay private -- I believe Pixar is one of those

PIXR

Meaningless

[TomRC]

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.

now it's sun's turn: java 1.4.1+ has same problem

[Khopesh]

JDK-1.4.1 License, note Supplemental License Terms 5 and 6:

5. Notice of Automatic Software Updates from Sun. You acknowledge that the Software may automatically download, install, and execute applets, applications, software extensions, and updated versions of the Software from Sun ("Software Updates"), which may require you to accept updated terms and conditions for installation. If additional terms and conditions are not presented on installation, the Software Updates will be considered part of the Software and subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement

6. Notice of Automatic Downloads. You acknowledge that, by your use of the Software and/or by requesting services that require use of the Software, the Software may automatically download, install, and execute software applications from sources other than Sun ("Other Software"). Sun makes no representations of a relationship of any kind to licensors of Other Software. ...

Java for Mozilla will require this!
that's right, mozilla 1.4final and up will need java 1.4.2+ (due to gcc3.2.x),
which means you need to agree to those terms if you want java. see mozilla bug 204236,
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=204236
(bugzilla blocks direct links from slashdot; you'll have to copy & paste.)

Re:great

[Duhavid]

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".

Or better yet...

[Kjella]

...get Media Player Classic from here. A reimplementation of WMP6.4 + some various other stuff, like DVD playing without compromising simplicity. My default media player without a doubt :)

Kjella