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."
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
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!!!
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
This is a nice concession by microsoft, but what of the weird restrictions on benchmarking alluded to in the older slashdot article?
.NET Framework component of the OS Components to any third party without Microsoft's prior written approval.'
'You may not disclose the results of any benchmark test of the
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.
The only way to "switch them off" is with a pair of scissors on your power cable.
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 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
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.
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 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.
Yup, this has been the only stumbling block for me to move from Linux to Windows XP .... That and it costing money.
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
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.
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
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...
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
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
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.
. .
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
"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.
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.
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...)
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.
You're new here, aren't you?
It's not that easy to dismiss.
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.
Example: A VPN user enters https://user@password:internalserver.company.com
IE then proceeds to send the URL to the search engine of choice. NOT good.