Slashdot Mirror
Free Upgrade From XP Home to XP Pro Lite
Novus writes "The Register reports that many of the features of Windows XP Pro, such as Remote Desktop and user management, can be enabled in Windows XP Home simply by changing two bytes in an installation data file. Another explanation can be found here."
If you are so bent on having the pro features and are willing to copy all the files off the CD, hack it, and then re-burn it (not to mention making sure not to screw up the bootable ability of the CD), why not just download Windows XP Pro? Both are illegal(take a look at the EULA), and downloading is easier and will still allow you to upgrade to SP2.
that Windows upgrades are cheaper than Linux
That's nothing, I heard that you can make Windows secure by changing 106,351,876 bytes before installing.
Ta-dit-boom!
I know a... um... friend of mine who tried it on his partents' system and it works just peachy!
Nope, not at all.
Are you trying to tell me, MS coders are so amazing that it only took them 2 bytes of data to program all these features?
-SJ53
I see a Service Pack 3 coming soon for XP Home.
I thought Crippleware died out years ago , aparently not.
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
...now if only MS released XP on CD-RW so I could make those changes without sacrificing the bootability of the CD. (e.g. the reason I have an XP CD on my desk almost constantly.)
My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
EULAs are dubious.
The EULA of Windows XP is not visible to the buyer before the sale, so it is not part of the contract in many countries. It's still borderline illegal, but the EULA has nothing at all to do with it.
The EULA is not proven in court , however copyright law is .
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
The EULA has no legal validity. As long as you don't violate the copyright (which you aren't, since the copy is transitory and for personal use only) or breaking any other laws, you can do what you like with the CD you own.
I am trolling
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Copyright law is enforced in courts, but U.S. copyright law also contains various exemptions such as 17 USC 117 (look it up on a search engine).
It looks like you make these changes before you accept the EULA I wonder if you could use that for an angle. Besides violating the EULA is more of a gray area than outright downloanding a copy of XP Pro. At least in my humble oppinion
500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
While the legality of EULA agreements may be in dispute, one still can't call making this change an "upgrade". At best it's a hack to gain new functionality which has been disabled. At worst, it's a copyright violation. In both cases, you still don't get Microsoft support - whatever the value of that. The article title really is misleading. --M
The EULA is a civil contract so legality doesn't enter into it. MS have given you the software, they don't explicitly list which elements you are allowed to use so you can choose to load whatever you may find. MS may decide that you are then in breach of contract, but you haven't broken the copyright.
See my journal, I write things there
Ok, yes in fact they do... somehow. They credit the c't magazine in their first sentence for the report. Shouldn't the editor also credit heise (c't) for that?
Or will we see some RSS-IT-news channel being credited for everything interesting in the near future?
I believe the XP "Super CD" floating around the net uses these techniques. It has about 6 different versions of XP all on one CD, ready for install. MSDN, Home, Professional, OEM, etc
Or quite possibly it just replaces the Setupreg.hiv files for which ever version the user chooses to install.
This is only a marginal improvement, I can already change "XP Home" to "XP Pro Lite" by changing only 4 bytes and adding 4 more to the end.
I'd rather just go mug someone on the street and then go buy a Legal Copy.
of Microsoft's business tactics. Not that I blame them, from a business standpoint why have one product when you can have two with none of the extra work? Personally though, I don't agree with selling two versions if the difference is apparently so small, once the public learns of the tricky afoot it's not good publicity for the company (like they need anymore of it).
A two byte hack to get rid of Winblows activation would be more useful...
Oh well, what the hell...
Hey, another slashdot dupe. I read the same article and almost identical comments 7 years ago when someone realized you could change NT 4 Workstation to NT 4 Server by changing a registry entry and rebooting...
Tiered versions are extremely common in the commercial software industry. Customers don't want to pay for features they don't want, while other customers will pay extra for features they demand.
When it is done correctly, it uses the same codebase. The fact that you're able to hack the versioning is completely meaningless.
One: If you do this, you can't get SP2. However, people knowledgeable enough about reghives and the registry aren't likely to place their main system in infection's way, so that problem's negated.
Two: Is GPedit enabled in this? That's the most useful tool in all XP Pro - screw that wussy little RD (VNC is far better) - and it stops a lot of crap from happening on a machine.
Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
I remember the (slightly larger) hack on Windows NT 3.51 to turn Workstation into Server. Not only did it remove the network restrictions, the system actually performed better.
Downloading Windows XP Pro is (in most countries) a crime, while changing few bytes in Windows XP Home is not.
When in doubt, go to the library. - Ron Weasley in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Changing 2 bits probably leaves a lot less traceable footprints than downloading illegal copies.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Well, the industry tricked you into believing that line of shit, but I ain't falling for it.
I'll modify MY purchase in any way I like, thank you.
As an earlier poster noted. :(
except in this case you'll need to change 16. ;-)
This is not flame bait, just an honest question- does anyone have an exerpt from the EULA that deals with this sort of thing?
Either way, this still sounds to me that this would hold up under fair use in court. Its on the stinking disc.
Its quite easy to create windows bootable CDs with service packs, hotfixes, your specific drivers and other customisations using nlite which is a free download from http://www.nliteos.com/.
Its worth keeping an Nlite disk up to date so then when you rebuild a system you don't have to spend so long applying service packs and downloading drivers. You can also easily apply unattended settings so that you can slap the cd in the drive, reboot and have the system up with no user intervention whatsoever.
Jason.
I'll believe that argument when you show me a music CD with an EULA. Until then, there's such a thing as fair use. And using software for which you've paid still fits that bill.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
"There is one big drawback, though. Users won't be able to install Service Pack 2, unless they integrate SP2 in the installation CD. And that's probably too much trouble for most users..."
So, pulling files from the boot portion of the disk, editing keys in regedit and reburning is conceivable, but going the extra step of slipstreaming SP2 into the disk before reburning is too difficult?
Methinks these guys were reaching to fill a page.
Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
Just to be pedantic, a license is a contract, so breaking it is a tort, not a crime.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Change a few more keys: (E.G. Unlock the restrictions on the number of concurrent connections, etc...)
Seriously, what is the point? For fourty bucks more you could have bought the workstation version of windows, and have it supported when thing s invariably go wrong. A registry hacked version of windows wil be unstable and unsupported.
I think the first time I heard about this was with windows NT 3.51: Make your workstation an unstable server. (actually, at the time everyone had been buying NT 3.5 workstation, which had no connection restrictions, to use with Netscape server: MS killed it by moving video down a rung for NT 3.51, and added restrictions on the number of concurrent connections to workstation. So you could buy MS server with IIS ~1.x...)
But I'd hardly call it an upgrade, unless windows is being overwritten by a real OS. Upgrade from windows to OSX, upgrade from windows to BSD, upgrade from windows to linux...
This is like a samegrade.
Actually, copyright violation is a civil matter as well.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Now if I can only find the two bits that changes my XP machine back to 2000...
"C++ is to C as Lung Cancer is to Lung"
This way you don't put any uploaders at risk. If nobody downloads from the warzes sites, they can stay "legal". May I assume that this is one of those DMCA issues where you're not allowed to modify the things that you own? EULA notwithstanding?
What?
Almost as much as sending a C&D letter to a kid who found out that bypassing your copy-protection was as simple as holding down the Shift key before the CD spins up.
... er ... not that I've tried.
All that this allows people to do is to gain some extra functionality that they otherwise didn't have. There is no reason to believe that the license key would not be accepted as valid or that this is somehow a major violation. Home and Pro don't even take the same license key
It's not illegal for me to modify a copy of my Star Wars:ANH DVD that I legally paid for so that Han fires first. It's not illegal for me to tell people how to let them make a copy of the DVD that they legally paid for so that Han fires first. It is illegal if I distribute or sell my modified copy, which I am not willing to do. The same thing goes for this little, XP hack. It still doesn't turn it into XP Pro. It's XP Home with some extra features. There's nothing illegal about it until a copy of it passes from my hands to someone else's.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
If you really belive that, I suggest you try it and then send a letter to MS telling them what you've done and see what happens. Or perhaps the line of shit is yours.
Won't you guys get in trouble for posting this, The DMCA, the dmca
My driver's license isn't legal until I sign it. The same should apply here. I will not be bound by any contract that I did not sign. If they want these things to be binding, make the customer sign an agreement before money changes hands.
What?
if microsoft is advertising pro and home as two distinct products, when in fact they are not, isn't this false advertising? it's like buying a ford with a V6 and finding that it's really a V8, just two cylinders turned off, and only a ford supplied wrench can open #7 and 8. forgetting linux for a moment, when apple sells Xserve 10 client, it's only 10 apple share clients. there's unlimited samba, ftp, etc., and they're not selling a "pro" version of os x. my guess is that if these features are already built into the OS, then a lawsuit is waiting to happen. i'm sure millions of users would like the features turned on since they're already there.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Geek #1: Windows really sucks!
Geek #2: I know what you mean. Only an MCSE would use Windows and you know how dumb they are.
Geek #3: I just read on Slashdot that you could upgrade Windows XP home to professional by just changing a few bytes.
Geeks #1 and #2: Sweet, how do you do it?
If that's the case, then the EULA has only been broken by those who developed this hack. To implement the hack without any decompilation, disassembly, or reverse engineering is in no way contrary to that portion of the EULA.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Price difference? £20.
Product difference? 2 bytes.
The look on a WinXP Pro user's face? Priceless!
Microsoft - how do you want to be robbed today?
VStrider.
Hidden conditions are illegal in a contract, as are unnegotiable terms, changing terms, terms that violated enunicated rights, and just about everything else in an EULA. Hence, an EULA is not a legal contract.
It is illegal if I distribute or sell my modified copy, which I am not willing to do.
No, it's not. If you start making copies, yes. But you can hack up your copy and sell it.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Yes, tell it to your landlord and parking garage. The fact is that nearly everyone signs or implicitly agrees to contracts the violate one or more of these principles but it doesn't stop them from being enforced.
Germans which are interested in it may also buy the latest computermagazine c't where it is described in detail.
except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation.
That's kind of funny in the EU where all reverse engineering is explicitly permitted and EULAs invalid for several reasons: (1) No additional conditions can be applied after a purchase, (2) only a contract that has been signed (after having gotten the terms explained, if necessary) and (3) terms set by consumer rights authorities override any terms that a seller sets (regardless of whether the seller does so before the purchase and with the buyer's consent).
Was there ever a XP Evaluation Edition? I have a Windows 2003 Eval Edition on CD (legal)and I program that patches the winlogin.exe (or something similar) to disable activation and such.
Do the slashdot editors think that all information should be considered like the information in radio waves? That once the information comes your way, you can do with it as you please? This would view would make cracking a shareware program perfectly ethical, if we are to believe the slashdot editors are ethical.
How about legality? Any lawyers reading this?
I never understood how that decision worked... The makers of Bnetd never, necessarily, even bought/installed/played a Blizzard game.
very nicely written. I agree.
No, you can not, because you are then selling a derivative work. The only reason censors and television stations do not get in trouble for this is because they have monopolies.
if there is any way to make such tweaks to an already installed system?
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Actually, you're only changing 2 bits, as the grandparent originally said; you're modifying a byte "01" to read "00", and another byte "02" to read "00". Thus you are changing two bytes, but really two bits. QED.
It sounds like more of a lateral move.
word.
Sorry,
This is only true for the U.S.
In Germany (the "hack" was shown in the german magazine "c't") you own the software when you buy it. You do not only own the CD, but also the software on the CD. It is yours, and you can do whatever you want with it (sell, modify it for your personal use, mark with an black "Edding", etc.)
So the "Hack" is absolutely legal, but you won't get any support from MicroSoft for this hack.
Yeah, that's way harder than using regedit to modify install files and copying the boot sector of the install CD to a new one...
Sincerely,
Your friendly neighborhood slipstreaming advocate
How many bytes do I have to tweak to upgrade my XP Pro to Longhorn?
except in this case you'll need to change 16. ;-)
Just to be a pedantic ass, he's actually only changing two bits. One change is making 02 (00000010) to 00 (00000000) and the other is making 01 (00000001) to 00 (00000000).
funny munging
It's not like it's easier on Adobe to make differerent, variously crippled versions of Photoshop. It's actually more work. They do it because it works for their shareholders: you sell a basic version with features disabled for $x, and make users pay for more features. Yeah, it's the same cost to them to print a CD either way, but the price of things is ALWAYS set by what people are willing to pay, not by what it costs you to make.
At least in the non-free software world. Rather different economics there.
It is simply like all other laws:
- constantly under review
- constantly found to be *illegal*
- continuely remanded, revoked (retroactivley)
and continuely *ignored* by the masses.. until the courts or whoever get around to removing them!
In other words.. all laws are subjective, period.
-- Peww! You can smell a lier.. I mean a lawyer a mile away!!
I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
In the US however, merely posting details about a circumvention method (w/few exceptions, such as a scholarly discussion, as in this conversation) is in violation of the DMCA.
See UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC. v. SHAWN C. REIMERDES, et al. (ie, the DeCSS case, where 2600 magazine was told they couldn't even link to DeCSS.)
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
You're wrong. One is larceny, the other just breaks a contract. The police can't arrest you for the latter.
Reverse engineering has always been at the forefront of technology and without it we wouldn't have chip manufacturers like AMD, etc. If I figure out how to make The Olive Garden's new pasta dish by looking at the results, it is not considered a crime so why would it be a crime to watch what is going over your network and building something from it? It's NOT. It's called competition and we should welcome it.
0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
Exactly. IANAL, but it should be possible for one to argue that, as they had not seen (and had little to no means of seeing) the EULA at the time of doctoring the CD, that they were unaware of the conditions imposed therein. Further, as the EULA would not apply at that point, there is little valid argument as to why slightly modifying (for personal use) software one physically owns is bad. This is another example of Microsoft's exploitation of users and, should they pursue this further (removal of comment letters, anyone?) they will continue to turn users toward alternatives.
check comment #356 7/
http://features.engadget.com/entry/41156673445007
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
you can't really hack up a dvd without making a copy of it though
its not like say a print of a painting in this regard
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Not true. Posting links (or the content itself) to a device used to circumvent copyright protection (e.g. an application like DeCSS) is covered under the DMCA, but you can describe a method with no issue. This is why plaintext descriptions of CSS are completely legal.
Disconnect and self-destruct, one bullet at a time.
I realize that *.hiv stands for hive, but I still believe that Microsoft could have come up with a better name. No wonder Windows is so susceptible to infection!
It should be more like this:
Geek #1: Windows really sucks!
Geek #2: I know what you mean. Only an MCSE would use Windows and you know how dumb they are.
Geek #3: I just read on Slashdot that you could upgrade Windows XP home to professional by just changing a few bytes.
Geeks #4 and #5: Sweet, how do you do it?
You did realize that slashdot is not just two people right? And maybe, just maybe, the people who don't like windows and the people who want to know how to do this are in fact, not the same people.
That's because Big Money doesn't like what you're doing. It's a threat to their source of income. Therefore they lobby (bribe) officials to make such action illegal.
The whole game is corrupt. Why anybody has any respect for it anymore is beyond me.
true..
but there are still plenty of good guys (ie those that hate m$ & love uni) that are stuck dealing with m$ in their jobs, who have cheapo bosses who want *everything*, but don't want to dish out for updgrades or whatever.
plus i think this is just for fun anyway (although i'm not dun readying the thread..so i'm not sure about that).
remember, m$ (its code anyways) is gunnu be around allllong time, even after unix over takes it.. soooo, we have to give credit, support and patience to the poor (unix-nerds who are stuck trying to deal with both uni & m$ at their jobs. :)
I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
I think the parent was meant to be funny.
I wonder how many people here are posting anonymously out of the shame of being unable to resist replying to something that is quite obviously an off-topic troll.
...but 1.21 gigabytes.
Don't worry. When the CD drive hits 88 rounds per minute, you're gonna see some serious shit.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Don't you think this question needs to be answered:
Is it *illegal*(this information), to hack something that has already been found to be *illegal*(m$ monopoly)? :)
I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
Don't forget you got modded insightful, so there's more than two. So, how about this funny joke:
ClosedSource: I eat testicles with mustard, and they are delicious.
Oh, wait that's not a joke? Just a made up statement that has no basis in reality, like your "joke"? Maybe more people would recognize your jokes if you learned what a joke is.
Just to be a pedantic ass, he's actually only changing two bits.
... ;-)
So I guess that'd make it a two bit hack of a two-bit OS, huh?
ROFLMAO!
Thanks I needed that, it's been a long difficult day and a good laugh was very relaxing.
As to the title of the article - I guess the anonymous coward was trying to discover just how far Redmond had actually gotten to him. The news is not good - proof positive sniffing the ink used on MS licence agreements is hazardous to the health.
-- Holerith
So far the best installation method, imho, is the "unzip" method - you get a nice zipped package, you unzip it, leaving you with a nice subdirectory, a nice executable file or two, several needed dll's/so's, several data directories/data files needed for the program to run, text files with explanations, and, preferably, a nice zip file containing all the source code and building instructions. This "installation method" works perfectly on any OS, and is indeed the one that causes the least trouble. Want to get rid of the program? Delete the directory. Waht to run the program? Open the directory, and run it. Want to hack the program? Open the source zip, download 10000 additional libraries needed, get your hands dirty (well, hey, programming is not for the average n00b, right?), etc. Just my thoughts...
You can modify the setupp.ini file in the /i386 folder on the CD for more tricks. You can turn an OEM disk into an upgrade version that will accept OEM keys (and properly activate with Microsoft) my simply copying the setupp.ini from an upgrade version into the /i386 folder, and changing the last three bytes on the "PID=" line to OEM. This little file is the only differential between XP Home OEM, XP Home Retail, and XP Home Upgrade.
last time i checked, what you are discribing is NOT *ShareWare*, but some sort of *cripple ware*.
True shareware allows the user to use it to its FULLEST ablilities, and when the user is satisfied that it is something that he can truely use or not, he either pays the writer or destroys his copies.
The only limits I remember (on the original intent of shareware) was for the time period you had to test it, and even that was only a (non-binding) thing added to get people to try it or get off the pot. ie the program never locked up and more importantly, you were NEVER threatened with any lawsuits etc.
Just because the original *INTENT* of shareware has changed, doesn't make it any less of a unique way of software writers to advertise their wares.
Your example, even when taken in context of your idea of shareware does not even come close to acurate since m$ has not and never was known to put forth any such type of system for people to evaluate the programs, to such a liberal degree. :)
I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
Those of us who aren't stupid like the ability to edit config files from scripts, copy them around to other machines, etc. Those who are smart use GUI tools to get to what they need without the learning curve. The stupid people are the ones who look down on others for not being like themselves. ...oh man. WIndows documentation? You mean, the kind that doesn't involve going over to a retail bookstore and laying down $50 + for a really big book with lots of pictures and white space? Yes. Terrible documentation.
Signed,
Ex-MCP.
where gettin their!!
I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
I'm not sure about the situation in the USA, but over here in the UK it is not necessarily the case that all the terms of MS's EULAs are legally binding. Specifically, no license or contract can take away your "fair use" rights.
:)
Whether or not this kind of modification is fair use is another matter. I suspect it is, but wouldn't want to stake money on it. Besides, I already have XP Pro.
I really don't understand people's reaction to this news. Would people rather have Microsoft press different CDs for the two products and charge users more?
Chip makers produce underclocked chips which they sell for less; how is this any different?
In a gym (for those don't know what this is, a gym is a place where you go to work off the donuts, you lardass), just because there is a sauna (which costs extra) under the same roof, doesn't mean that you should jimmy the lock to the door without paying, now does it?
sounds like u pissed The *Bill* Man himself, eh?
-- i'm tired of this game.. i'm going to play XBill ;)
I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
I would argue reproducing any of what the Olive Garden passes along as Italian food is a crime. I'd argue it's a crime when the Olive Garden does it.
Hospitaliano indeed.
But not many more. Problem is, though, the calling process performs a checksum operation that needs to be cancelled also, bringing the total to at least 4 bytes, and probably more like 10.
(we don't wanna give the enemy any ideaSSS!!)
I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
They get around it by saying that just by using the software, you agree to their EULA, which makes some sense. In an establishment, you agree to conduct yourself by their rules, lest you get removed from said establishment. Here, they would be threatening to remove your right to use the product or get support for the product, if you violated their policy.
US Code 17,106:
YMWV if you're not subject to US Copyright law.
you can describe a method with no issue
Not if describing the method is ruled to constitute an "offer" or "provid[ing] to the public" a technology that circumvents the copyright protection. See sections 1201.2(a) and (c) of the DMCA, where it's illegal to
manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof.
2600 was thought to have been providing deCSS simply by linking to it, even without describing the method of its operation. The balance of freedom of speech vs. the clauses in the DMCA that prohibit speech are, IMO, unclear, and HAS been used to quell even spoken descriptions of circumvention techniques.
Dave Touretzky demonstrates in his DeCSS gallery how retarded and incoherant this law's gag on free speech is.
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Now someone just needs to find the source code, and recompile it but with "set_bugs=0". ;)
As others have pointed out, contracts of adhesion are enforceable unless they are unconscionable. Not all adhesion contracts are unconscionable. As to "hidden conditions," what I think you mean is that the EULA is within the box, so the terms cannot be part of the contract by which you purchased the product. The EULA is perfectly valid in those cases, especially given a case involving Gateway 2000 where a court said that the additional terms within the box the computer came in were part of the contract, because the consumer could reject the goods if the added terms were not acceptable.
However, we are straying a long way from the original point of this thread. Whether you download XP Pro or you hack the XP Home CD, you are using software beyond the rights that were licensed to you with respect to that software. In the XP Pro case, you are using the software without any license to do so; while in the XP Home case you are using it in a way that you aren't licensed to. The piracy argument is harder to make for the second situation, but that doesn't make it any more legal with respect to the license.
As long as you don't violate the copyright (which you aren't, since the copy is transitory and for personal use only) or breaking any other laws, you can do what you like with the CD you own.
So as long as you don't break any laws, you aren't breaking any laws. Brilliant.
Microsoft already presses two different CDs since there are different install files. The thing is that Microsoft probably(I don't know off the top of my head) installs a lot of the junk from Windows XP Pro when you have XP Home, but doesn't activate those features. This means they are taking up more disk space than XP Home is supposed to based on features that Home isn't supposed to have.
If this is correct, then Microsoft is stealing hard drive space from people who are running Windows XP Home.
(Yes, this is offtopic, and its not meant as a troll.)
/etc (WHY?!), and the modules it WILL load are in some wacky directory that includes the specific version of the kernel you're running. Fun stuff. ;)
/usr/local by default, and configs/startup scripts/etc for them go into /usr/local/etc/ and /usr/local/share/ with startups going into /usr/local/etc/rc.d/.sh. One of the nice things about this is that its VERY hard to accidentally 'klobber' the base system. Since its all in /usr, and NO packages go there without your explicit say-so.
You really should try FreeBSD. I'm sure you'll love it. I'll even go through pains to tackle each of your problems with linux (most of which are valid even if you're not technical enough to be verbose or 'technically correct'):
1) The ports tree takes care of this automagically. If you don't want to install from source, the built-in-by-default option is to do pkg_add -r, and it'll go and fetch EVERYTHING and install it. You don't do anything at all. The other option is to install portupgrade, which will install some nice port/package utilities with actual SENSIBLE names like portinstall, pkg_add, etc.. My biggest problem in linux is everyone hacks their own damned management system, and every freakin' tool to use it is some convoluted inside joke. yum? what the hell? apt-get? C'mon. How about pkg_install or package_install or packageinstall? There ya go. That's the beginning of the BSD mentality.
2) Most BSD's have both from-source and from-binary options for everything, and make it exceedingly clear how to use either. And they BOTH work well. (As well as any system maintaining 20k+ utilities, and their recursive dependancies)
3) This is actually probably more of a complaint as to how your "distro" sets up X by default.
4) Almost the same here, but it really helps to not completely bork your kernel to the point where everyone has to re-write drivers for it every couple years from almost scratch. Most BSD's support modular device drivers and loading them on the fly. Linux does too, but good luck finding it. For example, in Gentoo there's 10 directories/files for 'modules' in
5) I agree, this is more of an KDE/GNOME thing in general, but it seems to be the whole mentality of the GNU and Linux OSS. If you don't like something, just fork it and hope everyone follows suit. But if they don't.. Well, you get 3542342 slightly different versions that sortof work together. Kinda.
6) Absolutely. I think your mindset also affects how easily you can read one groups' manpages over another's though. I can read FreeBSD manpages easily and understand what they're saying, but GPL'd software/Linux ones? Ha. Just a general idea.. Although, FreeBSD DOES have a nice user-friendly handbook + multiple exceedingly active ML's/forums/etc for newbies to get information quickly and easily.
7) This is where I REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY HATE LINUX!!! Linux is just the kernel, and EVERYTHING ELSE is addon software. Not so with BSD. The kernel + userland is the base software, and ports/packages are the addon software. This is a very important distinction, as the behavior of installing and configuring apps is TOTALLY DIFFERENT. Most things in BSDland go into
8) I think most FreeBSD users, while zealotous, aren't crazed, rabid fanatics. Most of us subscribe to 'the right tool for the right job', which allows us to use anything, not just things that 'are compatible with license X' just because Mr. Bearded Crazyman said so. Most of us run heterogeneous network envronments. I personally use about 5 different OSes (including a linux box, ironically) where I work.
9) Same as #6, but there is ALOT of documentation on EVERYTHING. Why? Because EVERYTHING is thought-out and communally developed. Look into any of the developer ML's, and you'll see what I'm talking about. NOONE decides they're going to just patch som
I understand your issues about what is involved but the procedure is almost indentical to slipstreaming a service pack and people do that all the time.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
1) No unification in package management. ...
Install systems on windows are just one of the examples of how windows GUIs lack anything near the standardization efforts that are used in developing linux desktop environments. Linux is allowed to have multiple packaging systems because there are different distributions, but there's no reason that Microsoft's single platform can't have a single method for installing/uninstalling software. As for dependencies, I suggest you look into Gentoo. Portage does fully automated dependency checking, configuration of optional components, and tries to help you merge updates to configuration files so your customizations don't get wiped.
2) The reliance of many people on "source only". ...
Installing from source is great if you want to keep up-to-date with bleeding edge development, but if you don't have time, you can ALWAYS find stable binaries for all but the most obscure projects or system configurations
3) Alt-Tab. ...
I don't use that many fullscreen graphics apps, so I'll focus more on your points that affect everyone
4) Drivers. There isn't much that can be done about this ...
Is this thread about linux itself, or hardware vendors' attitudes? Please stay on topic. By the way, ATI and Broadcom, I will most likely forever hate you.
5) GTK themes vs. KDE themes. ...
The closest thing to a valid point I've heard from you this far. Sure, windows has a single, consistent, universal, simplistic, ugly, toolkit, but I think the linux state of having 2 very different toolkits that are both far superior to anything microsoft has made in almost every way is a much better solution. GTK+ and Qt are completely different systems made by different people for slightly different puroposes. They use incompatible themes. Go figure. Find a GTK theme you like and a Qt theme you like and use them. Or put together your own theme. Or try the Qt engine for GTK.
6) man pages. ...
Finding and interpreting a man page is usually much easier than finding the equivalent in windows. You simply type "man" followed by the command you're confused about, and the text is formatted and displayed in your favorite pager. And each man page is displayed and organized in mostly the same format, so navigation is generally extremely easy.7) Configuration. ...
Another mostly valid point. Although I fail to see a structured for or against either the linux or windows configuration styles, so I won't comment.
8) Cockyness of it's fans. ...
Since I'm only focusing on technical issues, not cultural ones, my only comment is that you should have used "its" instead of "it's."
9) Documentation ...
I agree, Unix/Linux programs usually require the user to know a lot about the program in order to do anything besides simple tasks. Then again, so do many windows apps. Documentation is one of the major problems standing in the way of widesread linux use. The besat solution (although very costly) would be to collect all of the questions and answers from the various forums, mailing lists, IRC channels, wikis, and what have you into a centralized, globally-mirrored, easily accessible, continuously updated searchable repository.
One of the biggest (dis)advantages of linux is that there is always more than one (hundred, thousand) way(s) to do something. It's a disadvantage because it's hard to tell which way is best, and documentation is spread very thin. It's an advantage because it forces a more modular architecture that allows new features to be added more easily. Windows is too monolithic for Microsoft to re-vamp a mid-level component like the GUI library without breaking compatibility with users with older operating systems who don't have the money or hardware to do a full upgrade.
Everyone is born right-handed; only the greatest overcome it
In Soviet Russia, testicles with mustard eat YOU.
Can someone explain the difference between hacking XP Home to turn it into XP Pro and downloading a warez copy? Is one slightly less wrong than the other?
Alternatively swing by Best Buy and steal a copy.
after all, Microsoft did that with NT Server and NT Workstation. Andrew Schulman had shown that with a few registry tweaks, NT Workstation could be turned into NT Server quite a long time ago. It even fooled server programs like MS SQL Server, Exchange, SNA Server, etc that they were running on NT Server. The only big difference were the support files found on NT Server that NT Workstation did not have.
If someone looks at it hard enough, they can find registry tweaks to turn XP Starter Edition into a non-crippled version. It might resemble XP Home then. Then apply the XP Home tweaks to turn it into an XP Pro Lite type OS.
When you think about it, Microsoft keeps the kernels the same, but makes changes to the registry and support files. Tweak the registry, and you may be able to overcome limitations.
The IP connection limit is built into the TCP/IP stack of XP, but most P2P networks have a modified version that allows the user set their own number of connections, like say 100. I am sure that is against the EULA, but people run it anyway.
The more crippled Microsoft makes an OS, the more people will discover or find or invent a way around the crippling. Take DRM for example, people have already found ways around it, the new DRM on an Intel chip just makes it more of a challenge for people to find a way around it. Most likely someone will find or invent a way to fool the DRM functions that files are legit, via software or something.
Microsoft refuses to understand that it must meet the customers' needs, and that making a system more complex or trying to lock it down more, only upsets the customer. They will either seek underground methods to get around the limitations, find an alternative, use an older version of software/hardware, or just learn to suffer with it. In any case, it causes Microsoft bad PR, and a bad reputation.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
It looks like you make these changes before you accept the EULA I wonder if you could use that for an angle.
I absolutely agree with you. While courts have ruled that agreeing to an EULA by signing it is an acceptable to form a contract, until you actually sign the contract you can do whatever is legal under copyright to the work. This obviously includes modifying the work; imagine the stupidity of an author suing you for writing into a copy of his book.
But, extending that even further, there's no logical reason why you couldn't modify the EULA displaying program such that agreeing or disagreeing with it is sufficient for the program to continue to install. Again with the author analogy, it's like there being "EULA included" on the cover of the book, the EULA being on the inside front cover, and your choices being to rip up the contract or sign it. In reality, the only reason any sane person would sign such a contract is if it gave you things beyond what you're already intrinsicly entitled to (notice, copyright covers distribution and performance, not use). So, the idea that one could somehow technologically force people to sign a contract to use something they already have a right to use is ludicrous.
It's only now because counteracting an EULA is so much work and so few people get punished for violating an EULA now that so little effort is put into trying to circumvent such. It's not like most people are going to be able to sue MS and win when it comes to damages to faulty software even if they didn't sign the EULA, if only for lack of funds. In any case, as you sign the EULA after the modification, logically you're agreeing to terms under the modified version, so this automatic pairing removes any possibility of violating the EULA.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
This reply is not specifically to you but for the EULA threads in general.
I mentioned slipsteaming in an earlier thread but it applies here as well. MS itself supports modifying the original XP distibution media and rolling your own modified version, where in the EULA determines what modifications are and are not "allowed"? Just because it might seem logical because they sell two different versions that doing this should violate something does not cut it. What if you modified a few bytes to make the BSOD (blue screen of death) a RSOD? Would it only violate the EULA is MS sold a different version with a RSOD as well? How would something that be worded in the EULA? What about modifying some undocumented hex value in the registry to change something? Is that an EULA violation as well?
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Sure, I don't care. We can always show mutual respect. I've said it before, They're welcome to it. They can't stop me from using it, so there's no loss. As far as I'm concerned, their "unauthorized" use of GPL would just invalidate any copyright privileges they might claim.
What?
But they didn't reverse engineer it. They simply threw some crap together and called it italian food. I agree with you about the food being a crime, just that it is a different crime (attack on good taste, perhaps?).
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
No, you can not, because you are then selling a derivative work.
By this logic, it would also be unlawful for me to sell a book in which I've hilighted certain passages, and made notes in the margin.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
1) That might be right in theory, but from a users point of view everything in windows installs with a double click, worst case scenario is that the user has to unzip a zip file, but even that works with a double click. Linux is far far away from such easy installation and no, apt-get doesn't count, since that doesn't work with third party software, but only with official Debian.
DLL Hell is for most part a developers problem, seldomly a user has to deal with it, Dependency Hell on the other side bites you with almost every piece of software under Linux.
2) Even so the distros are huge, they still often lack quite a few more or less important packages, especially when it comes to new stuff.
3) If you are lucky Alt-Tab works, if you are unlucky it doesn't, while it doesn't work in 100% of the cases in windows either, the chance of success is *far* greater.
4) Good if ATI card works for you, it however doesn't for lots of other people, 3D acceleration is still not something that 'just works' in Linux and probally wont be for a while.
7) There are graphical tools for many things, but most of them simply suck, instead of parsing the config file they just overwrite it with their own version and similar fun. While the Windows registry has a ton of problem, it at least provides a consistent way to store config values and avoids such a mess.
I still choose Linux over Windows any day, but there are quite a few things in Linux that don't really make it all that newbie friendly and Dependency Hell, unescapable fullscreen and such are really something every Linux user will bump into sooner or later and no, switching the distro won't help, since for each problem you solve with a distro change you get dozens of new ones. Linux biggest problem is that there is no perfect distro around, plenty of distros solve plenty of problems very well, but none solves all together.
No. You can take a VHS tape of, say Xmen, and physically cut out all the bits with Wolverine, for example. You can then sell the physical copy you own to someone. If you make and distribute a new, altered copy, then you can get in trouble for copyright violations. As another poster pointed out, doing this to a DVD is not feasible. But it is not illegal. If you have proof otherwise, please quote the law or court case that makes it so.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Yeah, but an upgrade from Windows to OSX requires a downgrade in hardware. No thanks. Karma to burn, karma to burn.
I will not be bound by any contract that I did not sign.
So what you're saying is, sometimes you just pump gas, throw what you think it was worth at the vendor, and leave--the listed price be damned?
Apt is available for RPM based distros. There are other utilities as well like Mandrake's urpmi.
On themeing, Red Hat's Bluecurve and Mandrake's Galaxy themes do what you want. I just tested it with Kword and Abiword under Galaxy and they look very similar. Sure there are diferences but no more of a difference than if you had MS Word and Wordperfect on Windows.
Man pages are fine. They are not meant for the clueless newb. They are meant for a more experienced user.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
That depends on which court the case is heard in.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
So is highlighting passages in a book you purchased illegal? By the way you're interpreting "derivative works" it would be.
How is changing a few bytes on your own copy of XP any different from highlighting a passage in a textbook? They're both fair use, as there is no redistribution occurring.
(The real difference is, in the XP case someone thinks they could make more money if they stop you from doing it. But there is no formal "right to profit" in U.S. law, only an implied one which is being pressed upon us by corporate interests.)
Anybody that wants a secure and stable system won't have that computer hooked up to the internet, period
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Oh like say actually accessing your real desktop and not a completely seperate terminal server profile. For remote access I'd rather access my real desktop thanks.
And ever tried UltraVNC with the Mirror Video Driver? Its just as responsive as RDP.
RDP has advantages over VNC but VNC has come a long way and has nice features like File Transfer, Chat, decent speed, a bunch of different viewer, multiplatform support, and also an encryption plugin. So point out what VNC is missing and I'll do the same for RDP. I don't even use RDP anymore and VNC IS a drop in replacement for it that works very well.
"and the eaiest way I've found to avoid getting "crap" is to not run as administrator. *poof*, no more problems. I'm surprised more people haven't figured that out yet."
You mean regular home user are supposed to be able to figure out that they should reconfig their account to normal user? And when nothing works anymore and they can't add or remove hardware or install any software then what? Face it, until there are a lot of changes made by vendors and MS running as anything other than admin makes life difficult for regular consumers.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Chip makers produce underclocked chips which they sell for less; how is this any different?
Because everyone agrees that when you pay for your CPU, you own your CPU and can use and abuse it in any way you want. No-one is claiming overclocking is illegal.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
So what you're saying is...
You, too are missing the point. All that info is there for me to see before I make any transaction. I make an agreement with the person selling the gas before I buy. He's not going to come back afterword to tell me I can't siphon off the gas in my car to put into another car. And he sure can't tell I'm not allowed to put additives to give me better milage(if that were possible). If he did, I would indeed tell him to fuck off. The EULA is hidden away until after the purchase. That's like a taxi driver not telling me the rate until I arrive at the destination(in which case, I would pay what I think is fair). That's why I ask "how much?" before I get in the cab(they don't use meters here). But that was a nice attempt at misinterpretation on your part. Either way, once I'm in possession of something I bought, it's mine to do with as I please.
What?
IIRC, you are allowed to reverse engineer for the purpose of interoperability. This is how Samba is legal.
Then again, I could be completely wrong.
E = m c^3 Don't drink and derive E = m c^3
You're misunderstanding the logic here. Your book is a physical object which can be altered and resold. The software cannot be altered on the medium it's given on (CD), thus if you sell the hacked version, you're distributing a copy, which is illegal.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Supreme Court resolves that split someday, but it would take a pretty big case to do it. It shouldn't surprise you that Gateway 2000 is headquartered in Sioux Falls, South Dakota; and that South Dakota is in the 8th Circuit. ;)
" you are using software beyond the rights that were licensed to you with respect to that software"
Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Care to substantiate this claim?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
An entity sells an operating system. After purchasing the operating system, taking it home, opening the package and inserting the media into their computer they are informed that they must agree to an EULA, which is then presented on screen in such a way as nearly all people don't read it.
Some of the patches that are automatically installed by this entity on the purchaser's computer change the EULA.
The Purchaser uses the product in such a way as to not comply with the EULA
Ethical question: Is the purchaser simply stealing, are both parties at fault, or has the producer of the operating system tainted their hands, so that the purchaser's actions are justifiable?
Situation 2:
An entity steals an operating system from the late great Kildall. Using illegal practices to force their (and only their) stolen operating system on consumers, and abusing their monopoly to the extent that consumers pay so much above what would be market value in a competitive environment that the CEO of the entity becomes the unassailably richest man in the world. The entity is convicted of abusing the monopoly, but has become powerful enough that they can manipulate the penalty, and continue to practice in an illegally anti-competitive manner.
A person purchases a product from this entity, and pays for it.
Ethical question: Is paying for the product ethical, given that it increases the money and power of the criminal entity? Or is stealing the only conscionable way to acquire the products of this entity?
I can't find anything in the EULA that prohibits modifing the software. Usually it's under the reverse engineering section, but it's not there:
4. LIMITATIONS ON REVERSE ENGINEERING, DECOMPILATION, AND DISASSEMBLY. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation.
I love their alfredo sauce, so I downloaded a recipe describing how to make similar-tasting sauce, and have successfully made said sauce at home. Is that cheating? I doubt it. I never signed any agreements, before or after eating the food, not to ever try to duplicate the taste. And since when is changing two bytes in one file "cheating"? That's not reverse engineering or decompiling.
i am a soviet space shuttle
You, too are missing the point.
The onus of communicating your point is on you, not me.
You said nothing about wanting to know all of the terms of any software you have before you purchase it. You said that you were not going to hold yourself to any contract you did not sign--and pumping gas is a classic case of non-written contracts.
To get back on topic, what are you told when you tell a merchant you want to see a copy of the EULA before you purchase the software?
Please don't dispense legal advice if you aren't a lawyer. That's blatantly incorrect based on existing case law, and I'm not even a damned lawyer. In a great many cases - if not most - EULAs are enforceable.
BTW, reminds me of an old saying "You can fix your own leaky sink but no one will call you a plumber, you suck one penis in prison, and you're a cocksucker for the rest os your life...."
.. now can we? Imagine the chaos that would ensue!
Ahh, but you're not a professional cocksucker after just the one hummer are you? No-no, you're still an amateur, and you best not purport to be anything but! That's because, just like the plumbing and electrical professions, there are industry standards to be met. We can't have just any shmoe running around sucking wang without the correct, fully-authorized credentials
No thanks. I categorically refuse head from self-titled "professionals." Always insist on seeing certifications and/or licenses! Otherwise, who knows how satisfied you'll be with the results.
Whether you download XP Pro or you hack the XP Home CD, you are using software beyond the rights that were licensed to you with respect to that software.
How am I using the software beyond the license terms if the functionality is already there and I just enable it by changing two bytes? In other words, why would I not be entitled to use the software that I bought and Microsoft provided to me on the disc?
If MS didn't want me to use it, why is it there?
Whether it's legal or not doesn't really matter if Microsoft releases a Windows update that "fixes" this hack.
:-]
Thanks, I needed a good chuckle.
It's only an insult if it's not true.
How is changing two bytes to unlock hidden functionality "stealing"? When people decide to intentionally cripple a product, they deserve what they get if people figure out how to uncripple it.
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
Even though the CD won't boot, you could upgrade a Windows 2000 or earlier installation using one of these CDs.
I would think that he wouldn't even get to pumping the gas. If there were no contract at all then he'd be trespassing and stealing.
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
okay... but please then explain the leap to how that is in fact THEM exploiting YOU.
Jeremy
But section 107 only says that "the fair use of a copyrighted work ... for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright".
I'm not sure that covers modifying software. Section 117 talks specifically about software, but only grants you permission to copy or adapt software for compatibility/interoperability purposes, and backing up.
If you were allowed to alter software, then the GPL and similar licenses wouldn't need to specifically grant you that permission, and the folks on debian-legal wouldn't require such a grant of permission in any license they review for complience with the DFSG.
Not trespassing, it's a place of business. Not stealing, he paid for the gas.
He's just not holding himself to the letter of the contract.
You can set apt to look anywhere you want for packages so you don't have to stick with "official debian". Debian has a non-free section though, and most mirrors have it, so if your 3rd party software can't get into Debian standard because of liscence issues, you can probably still pull it down with apt-get.
Gentoo is looser in its requirements, so most things that Debian would put in non-free of contrib go in with the rest with their liscence info noted in the ebuild. And for programs like java and flash which are 3rd party and have liscences that prevent redistribution portage gives you a link and requests that you fetch the package. Then it does the rest, managing dependencies.
If you know the name of your program, "apt-get name" or "emerge name" is a lot faster than the Windows way of searching through sketchy download sites (downloads.com, tucows, etc).
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
No, they're not exploiting you.
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
Read the license carefully and show me the language that allows you to modify the software.
Can someone explain the difference between hacking XP Home to turn it into XP Pro and downloading a warez copy?
The former only became illegal when the DMCA was passed. The DMCA makes a lot of previously legal and still necessary actions illegal, so the fact that it's illegal under the DMCA is by itself irrelevant to the morality of the act. So it comes down to the morality of boosting the performance of a factory-crippled product. You can buy products for doing that at any auto-parts store.
The latter? XP Pro includes software that isn't included in XP Home. Even if you bought a copy of XP Home you're not entitled to that. But if Microsoft sold you more than they claimed they did, and you can turn that extra software on?
Violating a EULA may be illegal, but I'm not going to call it unethical.
dude , I dont think Downloading Warez is one of those exemptions
I know that downloading a copy of Windows without Microsoft's permission is copyright infringement, but the point is that the crack described in the article might fall under section 117.
So this patch is essentially a "diff" *before* install with no possibility to apply this to an existing installation.
The real interesting question is: What would have to be patched to apply this upgrade to an existing system? I do not want to reinstall a nicely working system just to get this little extra functionality.
So the path is clear: install one XP normally, then install one with the "Pro Lite" option. THEN run a diff on all files and on the registry and report your findings.
Anyone up to the task? Please?
--- Eat my sig.
Pumping gas is consuming a product offered for sale. If you fail to pay for it, it's not a contract violation, it's theft by conversion. The police cannot arrest you for contract violations, and they sure as hell can do so for stealing gas.
I wish people who don't know anything about contract law would shut up about it. There is no such thing as 'magical invisible contracts that apply when you do something'. Contracts do not work that way.
When you pump gas, you accept the offer made to provide gas at that price. That. Is. Not. A. Contract. It is an offer made and acceptance of the offer, aka, a perfectly normal purchase.
It works exactly like every other purchase works, except you consume the goods to indicate acceptance of the offer, instead of handing them money to indicate acceptance of the offer.
And, just so we're clear, an 'offer' has nothing whatsoever to do with a 'contract'. The only way to agree to a contract is to agree to a contract, you can't do it via any random action.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
You can't release an update to a Microsoft install CD.
They're Read Only.
Your hard drive isn't. Microsoft could release a security update that checks the hard drive for an installation produced by such a cracked install disc and writes files to the hard disk to undo the effect of the crack.
I don't think that the section 106 restriction of the right to prepare derivative works to the copyright holder is relevant here. That's a restriction only on distribution. If I buy a copyrighted book, for example, I am perfectly free to change the binding, cut out pages that I don't like, cross out bits I don't like, annotate it, and so forth. What the copyright restricts me from doing is distributing such things.
show me the language that allows you to modify the software.
Modifying a computer program and not distributing copies of the modified program is not copyright infringement. Title 17, United States Code, Section 117(a)(1).
>>How is changing two bytes to unlock hidden
>>functionality "stealing"? When people decide to
>>intentionally cripple a product, they deserve what
>>they get if people figure out how to uncripple it.
Sounds just like overclocking to me....
I think the poster earlier was trying to say that MS was exploiting the end user by charging more for a Pro version that is identical to the Home version except for a few bytes in the installer.
It's similar to Nvidia selling Ultras that didn't pass the test as GT models, while a few tweaks can unlock it. It's also similar to AMD having a few jumpers unbridged on the chip that a pencil can bridge. I understand why hardware manufacturers take shortcuts like this and ultimately it benefits the company as well as the end user. However, for a software company to do this is questionable.
And that's the way it should be. Using copyright licensing for software sales is a patch. We need to come up with a real solution of how to deal with this. New law specifically for software sales is needed. When you make a purchase of a piece of software, it should be yours to do whatever you want with it (barring decompilation possibly).
Unless you happen to be a member of the bar, I'll trust my teachers over you. (And if you're not in the United States, then you should realize that makes you a minority here on /. and state such in no uncertain terms. Same if you ARE a member of the bar, and want special weight to your answers here on /.)
/. moron. Never can tell until you reply.)
(And to get this out of the way--I'm in New York State. The specifics of contract law varies from state to state, and even more from country to country. If you happen to be in another country or in a state that doesn't follow the UCC, then our differences may be real differences in the law, not inaccuraces in fact.)
When you pump gas, you accept the offer made to provide gas at that price. That. Is. Not. A. Contract.
Yes. It. Is.
A contract requires four things--an Offer, Acceptance of that Offer, Consideration on both sides (i.e., something of value from each side to the other), and a Legal Purpose.
I tell you that, if you cut my lawn tomorrow, I'll pay you $200. You come and cut my lawn tomorrow. I pay you $50. You then file in small claims court for--wait for it--breach of contract. And likely get both your $150 and some additional punitive monies.
The only way to agree to a contract is to agree to a contract, you can't do it via any random action.
No, not by any random action. But you can agree to a contract by undertaking a specific action that a reasonable person in your circumstance should know would result in a legal arrangement being formed between yourself and another party. Such as, you pumping gas at a gas station with a labeled price.
(Yes, the police can arrest you for stealing gas. And if the DA can't utterly convince 12 folk that the grainy photo was definitly you, you won't go to jail for it. But even if you beat the DA's rap, the gas store owner can still sue you in a civil action to recover their lost income from your underpayment.)
I'd be very interested in hearing where you abscribe this supposed large difference between purchases and contracts from. I suspect that you're just an arrogant nitwit and not a moron, and there is a real jurisdictional difference here. (Then again, you may just be a typical
hence, you can install OSX on non-apple hardware legally. definitely morally and ethically.
artificial restrictions are just plain malicious.
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
>Would it only violate the EULA is MS sold a different version with a RSOD as well?
you have to buy longhorn for that particular innovation.
What if the use of Remote Desktop is considered an essential step, for instance, to let someone troubleshoot someone else's home computer?
### You can set apt to look anywhere you want for packages so you don't have to stick with "official debian".
Sure, you can edit your sources.list for each and every piece of software your install, but that is both annoying and not really problem free, a random third party repo often disapears randomly, changes urls and such and that is a pain to track, so sources.list quite often needs cleanup if you use lots of third party stuff. What I miss is something like 'apt-get install http://foo.com/foo.deb', something that makes the whole sources.list stuff automatic. As nice as apt-get is for official Debian stuff, for third-party stuff its for most part more pain than worth it.
The problem with Linux way of managing software is really that its all central to the distros, autopackage and/or LSB might help, but I have yet to install a first piece of software with those, for the moment compiling from source is often the only way.
Besides microsoft specifically excludes the operating system as being free of viruses when the sell it to you. So did you active it or did the virus because if microsoft can not tell whether the operating system is free of viruses or not, then any thing that occurs on your computer could be as a result viruses inherent with in the operating system.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
you're note purchasing the software... you're purchasing a license to use the software
There are plenty of examples of cripple-ware. Mail servers are a good example: the communigate pro mail server software scales from 10 to 1,000,000s of accounts... all that's different is the license key enabling the larger number.
So you're saying that if you buy the cheap, small version, and they give you a license key that "cripples" their software for you by limiting it in its features, it should be just fine for you to steal by using a fake or hacked key to get past their protection!?
It is still stealing.
- Peter
INsigNIFICANT
The Windows registry gets modified all the damn time by just about every program you install. What's the difference here?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Slackware is easier that that. All you type is installpkg pkgname, upgradepkg pkgname no underscoring required! Or if you want dependency checking you do slackpkg install pkgname.
The days of the digital watch are numbered.
Try looking up wpakill on google - some network of self referential search engines have broken google's ability to find relevant results for the term.
Shh.
I couldn't read the license before I bought it, so it doesn't bind me.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
It's similar to Nvidia selling Ultras that didn't pass the test as GT models, while a few tweaks can unlock it. It's also similar to AMD having a few jumpers unbridged on the chip that a pencil can bridge. I understand why hardware manufacturers take shortcuts like this and ultimately it benefits the company as well as the end user. However, for a software company to do this is questionable.
Not really. When you unlock the extra pipes on the GTs, you're likely to get graphical glitches. You might get lucky, but NVidia can't really be expected to sell defective equipment.
hmm microsoft mades one version of windows, this is profession, and then remove functions with the installer .hiv file.
what is with the windows starter edition?
can make to a profession edition?
"There is no such thing as 'magical invisible contracts that apply when you do something'. Contracts do not work that way."
A few years ago I had to sue an employment agency to get some money I was owed by a client of theirs for whom I'd done some work.
I had been verbally instructed by the agency to invoice them for my fee, and they would recover it from the client (plus, I assume, their fees).
When the client went belly-up and refused to pay them, the agency tried to weasel out of paying me because we had not signed a contract.
At the subsequent court hearing, the magistrate practically laughed at the guy from the agency when he attempted to make this argument. The court found that by telling me to invoice them, the agency had entered into a contract to pay me, and that was the end of it.
So it's quite easy to create a contract by 'doing something', and there's lots and lots of examples in the case law. IANAL (I'm a journalist as it happens) but I studied a bit of law at college, and contracts are startlingly easy to create. Anyone who thinks a contract can only be two pieces of paper signed by both parties should get out of whatever business they're in - their ignorance will eventually bite them.
I see your logic but I'd have to disagree. Changing these two bytes will not changes the original product, which is the read-only CD.
Also, changing these two bytes "uncripples" this product. Overclocking usually "cripples" the hardware in the long run in my opinion.
However, many courts see it as purchasing the software when:
You enter a physical store.
You pick up a sealed package.
You purchase said package, paying real money for it.
You don't see the license 'agreement' until you've opened the sealed container, or even started installing the software.
These judges especially don't see it as 'licensing' a copy when you can't return it for a refund at the store you bought it at if the package is opened(required to read the TOS).
I don't read AC A human right
There seems to be a way to make desktop version of Windows 2003 (with some distribution tweaking setup magically starts to look like XP's, but I didn't go much beyond that yet).
Jugding by magical product transformations in NT and 2000 line (lookup information on ProductType and SystemPrefix registry keys) I suppose this can be done.
It's a shame that Microsoft never released desktop counterpart on Windows 2003 codebase, because it performs so much better than stock Windows XP or 2000.
Uh, yes. I bought the cd. It wasn't sold as a license, it was sold as a cd. I own the cd.
I am trolling
Downloading a copy: illegal.
Reverse engineering a product: illegal in many countries.
Modifying your own copy for personal use without reverse engineering it: legal.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
Furthermore, the hack described by The Register involves using RegEdit to make the changes to what is apparently a configuration file for the installation program. I fail to see how Microsoft could even argue that using a tool they have written for its intended purpose (changing settings for Windows and Windows-based software) is illegal. What's the fundamental, legal difference between changing a value in RegEdit and checking a check box in Control Panel?
You could even argue that Microsoft put the functionality there and have to support it. In fact, you could even argue that Microsoft would not have the right to disable this functionality in a patch without warning the user (although their boilerplate patch EULA probably qualifies as a warning even though it probably isn't legally binding), as that would be functionally equivalent to a trojan.
when SP3 comes out, does that mean it won't upgrade to SP3 and at that you'd need to do a full reinstallation with SP3 integrated into the CD?
HD Trailers
If you really belive that, I suggest you try it and then send a letter to MS telling them what you've done and see what happens.
Remember to include an EULA with your letter. Such that by opening the envelope they agree to modify all future copies of XP Home in the same way.
Just to be pedantic, a license is a contract, so breaking it is a tort, not a crime.
EULAs claim to be contracts. Whilst denying the usual attributes of contracts like allowing both parties to negotiate terms. Lacking exchange of "consideration". Containing clauses which are voided by pre-existing statute and case laws. Allowing one party to change the terms without notice.
All the sorts of things which are likely to have any attempt to sue for "breach of contract" sumarily dismissed.
However, we are straying a long way from the original point of this thread. Whether you download XP Pro or you hack the XP Home CD, you are using software beyond the rights that were licensed to you with respect to that software.
You'd need to consult a local lawyer to find out which parts of the EULA, if any, are actually applicable to you.
In the XP Pro case, you are using the software without any license to do so;
The EULA, the "certificate" and the media are all separate entities. It has always been possible to buy "licenceless" copies of Microsoft software. Intended for use with various corporate volume licence systems.
while in the XP Home case you are using it in a way that you aren't licensed to.
The thing to remember is that an EULA does not supercede the "law of the land". Be it copyright law, contract law or even anti-hacking law.
1) If you're dumb enough to get stuck with XP Home, you're too dumb to do this hack, so it doesn't matter to you.
2) If you're not dumb enough to get stuck with XP Home, but you were dumb enough to get Windows at all, you deserve to go to jail or sued for getting caught doing this hack.
3) If you're smart, you run Linux (or at least dual-boot with XP Pro already), so you don't give a shit about this hack.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Software all over the industry is crappy. Its poorly developed, poorly tested, and fixed in the field. The Internet has become an avenue for fix-it-in-the-field software production. Just because its been formalized in the OS doesnt mean that its supposed to be that way. They shipped you broken stuff. Then they shipped you a tool that you can use to spend your bandwidth to fix it.
Its ALL over the place. With hard disks that get nuked after an OS upgrade, to lousy security design and implementation, to awful user interface glitches.
But you have no choice! You have to pay for this shit. And then pay more and every year for virus scanners and popup blockers and every tool under the world just to save your ass.
You cannot return the products. You cannot trust the products. And you cannot trust the companies who know they are screwups and are intent on making as much money as they can anyway.
So yes linux is not perfect. And maybe its got more warts than some others...or maybe you are just used to the other's warts.
But at least I dont HAVE to buy it. At least I dont HAVE to pay for it. At least I dont HAVE to license it. At least it wont phone home and rat me out.
Nothings perfect.
10. Installers don't add software to the start menu
There is no start menu
19. People think I'm gay when I tell them I use linux
It's the bar you're hanging our in, not linux.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
"it should be possible for one to argue that, as they had not seen (and had little to no means of seeing) the EULA at the time of doctoring the CD, that they were unaware of the conditions imposed therein"
I love your idea there. Unfortunately you *would* have been aware of the EULA at that point. A copy of the EULA is distributed on the inside of the box in a booklet with every copy of Windows, as well as on the CD.
It would never hold up in court, unless you claimed 'I didn't know there was a EULA in "Windows XP Home - Getting Started' or you could also argue "Well I downloaded XP Home off the net, how should I have known it had an EULA?"
Neither of those seem like a solid case.
That's not such a good idea. There are lots of libraries that are shared between programs but wouldn't still be considered a part of the operating system... What about those? Imagine having a libpng.so in a few dozens program packages and then having to replace each and every instance when a security vulnerability is discovered. I do agree that keeping most of the files an app needs in a seperate directory is not a bad idea, though..
These rights are listed as equal peers, there is no indication that any are subservient to any others. Therefore you may neither copy your book, or modify it (even if you don't distribute the result).
But once you know it is standard practice the court would probably rule that you weren't acting in good faith since you could easily avoid the issue by asking about a EULA before the purchase or by simply not buying the software.
I'm not sure I understand what good faith means exactly, but my understand of it is that good faith means to have good intentions when it comes to following the spirit of a contract, not the actual wording. The problem is, sale of a copy of a copyrighted work isn't something uniquely new to software. Even though it is true that it's now common standard to include an EULA with software, I don't think that modifying the software is a violation of good faith.
Here's why. EULAs aren't a new concept. The same idea was tried back in the 20s by book publishers. It became quite common for this EULAs to be attached to the inside cover of the book. And at that time, the courts struct down the whole EULAs in books.
"Why?" you might ask. The courts recognized a concept called First Sale Doctrine. In a nut shell, it means that buying something implies the right to use it. It's for this reason that software companies (though not retailers) have repeatedly tried to talk about "licens(e)"ing boxed software. But, the fact is, boxed software is clearly a sale. As such, it's questionable that even if you did agree to a fair EULA* that it'd be enforceable.
But take it a step further and completely circumvent ever agreeing to the EULA, and it seems even more difficult to somehow claim that the user is somehow covered under the EULA. The claim that "good faith" is somehow a basis for why such a defense wouldn't work seems silly. It's that sort of logic that would indicate that, for example, it's unnecessary to sign a car rental agreement/contract because everyone should just automatically realize that they're bound by such a contract after they hand over the money. Claiming that you being able to get a refund basically opens the flood for every single manufacturer of every good to retroactive force requirements with the option to comply or return the product for a full refund. The simple fact is, one should realize that most companies are assholic enough to try such, so going along with whatever they say should in theory be "acting in good faith".
This idea that copyright is the only law that applies to software is FOSS wet dream.
Obviously not. There's also the 1st amendment (a law to limit govt), libel, slander, fraud, trademark, copyright, patent, and any sort of contract you can manage to link to software. Of course none of those matter to you the end user if you're being selling a copy of a copyrighted work. If you're redistributing under a license, then obviously the whole list of laws can go into effect. It's the understanding that software is speech and copyrightable that is the basis upon with FOSS builds their ideals precisely because it's the one thing assured to occur whenever you receive a copy of software. If you can find some actual law that contradicts how much software is based in speech, I'd welcome the opportunity to read it.
*One of the requirements of a valid contract/license is the concept of consideration. In simple terms, both sides give up something in return for something else. Contracts are simply a way of commiting a non-standard sale, usually in writing. Without an EULA giving the user something, then the user giving up something in return is unfair. You'll notice that even in the simplest of court settlements where one side is basically giving in completely to the other side for reduced damages that the other side will always end up trading some trifle object in return, even if it's only $1. Given that First Sale Doctrine restates the innate right to use what you bought, I'd love to know what good faith there actually is in giving up some rights, like the right to sue for damages from defective software, for nothing in return.
And before you claim things like protection from libel or
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
107 only says that "the fair use of a copyrighted work ... for purposes such as...
It is a list of examples. I'd say installing software you bought blatantly falls within the realm of a "Fair Use". I'm sure virtually any judge will aree. (Of course I'm also sure Microsoft would hire lawyers to at least present the argument that it isn't.)
If you were allowed to alter software, then the GPL and similar licenses wouldn't need to specifically grant you that permission
You are correct, grin. When the second half of an "if-then" statement is false then the statement itself is true. Chuckle.
If you were allowed to alter software, then the GPL and similar licenses would not need to specifically grant you that permission.
Well, the GPL and similar licenses do not need to grant you that permission. In fact the GPL does not grant you that permission. The GPL explicitly says it does not grant that permission because it explicitly says you do not need any permission. The GPL explicitly says that you do not need to accept the GPL to run the software or to make personal modifications.
the folks on debian-legal wouldn't require such a grant of permission in any license they review
I don't know what that particular group does or why that do it, but that does not in any way indicate that everyone would need to do so. At least not under US law. Maybe the debian folks are just being extra paranoid on the subject or maybe worrying about quirks of copytright law in some other country, or maybe they have been mislead about the law (as you have) by the companies using and promoting EULAs. EULAs horribly missrepepresent the law, and those who promote and defend them generally missunderstand or missrepresent the law horribly.
There may be some circumstances where you have validly accepted and been bound by an EULA, but the facts are (1) an EULA does not exist and does not bind you unless you actually agree to it, and (2) you do not require an EULA to be able to install software you bought. Installing software is not infringment and you do not need any licence at all to do it. And of course all sorts of other missinformation gets rolled into there, the notion that reverse engineering against the copyright holders wishes is illegal, or that altering it (for personal use) is illegal, etc etc etc.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I hate EULAs as much as anybody, but they do have consideration. You paid money for the right to use the software, and they provided the software.
Hey, can I bum a sig?
If you had had business cards that say '10 dollars an hour' and he had walked up out of the blue and said 'Do this work for me', without discussing any sort of price, I'm afraid the business cards don't make some sort of magical contract. If you don't discuss a fee, you are doing it for free.
Whereas if you walk into a restaurant and order food without looking at the menu, you don't have a contract, you have finished a purchase, and you are required to pay the money that is now theirs. It's a completely differnet area of law.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I'm quite sure that installing software counts as fair use--and section 117 allows you to alter your software, but only as far as the modifications allow you to install/use the software.
I haven't seen any other part of title 17 that contradicts 17 USC 106 (the owner of copyright under this title ... has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize ... [the preparation of] derivative works based upon the copyrighted work).
Hmm? The following parts of the GPL mention modification:
The Creative Commons and MIT licenses also grant the licensee permission to modify/prepare derivative works--because otherwise that right is reserved to the copyright holder.
While I agree that EULAs are bullshit, and that the folks on debian-legal are, for the most part, overly paranoid, I believe they have stated in the past that they require a license to grant the right to prepare derivative works because otherwise, US copyright law reserves that right to the copyright holder.
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
you should be using the Remote Assistance feature of XP Home
Remote Assistance sounds like a solution to the problem. But based on the description, doesn't Remote Assistance require Windows Messenger to be turned on? Isn't the Windows Messenger service an annoying source of pop-ups? Wouldn't this hack be an "essential step" in getting rid of Messenger spam? Or does Remote Assistance actually require what I know of as "MSN Messenger" which is distinct from Windows Messenger?
You're right, I overstated what the GPL says. My bad.
A VCR recording is a drivative work. Encoding a song into MP3 is a derivative work. Reversing a song to play it backwards looking for hidden satanic messages is a derivative work. Changing the legngth of a song is a derivating work. Cutting up a song and gluing the peices back together to play the notes in a different order is a derivative work. And none of those things is copyright infringment. Not if you're sitting in your home and for your own use.
Copyright grants a limited monopoly to market a work. It is not directed to restricting the private use of a copy once the copyright holder has exercised his rights in choosing to give you a copy of that work. In general you can do pretty much anything(personal use) you like with the copy you now own.
The publishing lobby virtually denies the existance of Fair Use, only grudgingly admitting what the courts have directly forced them to admit (and often even continuing to deny or battle against many such examples). The court's definition of Fair Use is certainly not limitless, but it is far broader than publishing industry sources paint it.
And perhaps an amusing note, this particular adaptation would in fact be a required step in the utilization of the software you bought. The software you bought does indeed include the code for these other features, and this adaptation is indeed required to utilize that portion of the software. Chuckle.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
A contract requires four things--an Offer, Acceptance of that Offer, Consideration on both sides (i.e., something of value from each side to the other), and a Legal Purpose.
A purchase requires an Offer made and Acceptance of that Offer. (Without consideration on both sides it's called a 'gift', but is otherwise the same thing.)
A contract merely requires Consideration on both sides and Acceptence of the contract by both sides. No 'offer', although for some reason people often try to assert so. An offer is made by one side, whereas a contract is made by two.
Think of the difference this way: In a contract, both sides agree independently. It is written out, and signed in a random order. If I sign, and then change my mind before you sign, I'm screwed. You can still sign and make it a valid contract.
OTOH, if I go the store, and the cashier offers me a price of $100 dollars, and then realizes I'm the guy who shoplifted last week, he can withdraw the offer if I have yet to pay.
That's just the most blatant difference, because things have to happen in a certain order in a purchase.
Another example, if there's a box with newspapers on the street that says 'Free', that is legally an offer, and I can accept it by taking one, thus purchasing the newspaper. There's no way to even consider doing that via contract law.
I tell you that, if you cut my lawn tomorrow, I'll pay you $200. You come and cut my lawn tomorrow. I pay you $50. You then file in small claims court for--wait for it--breach of contract. And likely get both your $150 and some additional punitive monies.
That's not magically appearing out of thin air, that's a normal oral contract. I didn't mean you couldn't consent to an already existing contract with actions, of course you can.
If you had appeared on his lawn one morning with a lawn mower sans any other contact with him, and he said 'Be sure to get the back', and you'd never agreed to any contract, you'd be screwed.
(Yes, the police can arrest you for stealing gas. And if the DA can't utterly convince 12 folk that the grainy photo was definitly you, you won't go to jail for it. But even if you beat the DA's rap, the gas store owner can still sue you in a civil action to recover their lost income from your underpayment.)
Ah, but they can't arrest you for failing to cut someone's lawn, or failing to pay the person afterwards. Or if you buy a car and fail to make payments. That's a civil contract violation, failure to fulfil some form of a contract.
Whereas failure to pay for a purchase and walking off with the goods is a form of theft, either theft by taking or theft by conversion.
Contracts are promises for the future. They say 'If you do X, I will do Y'. And only the courts can decided when you failed to do X.
Purchases are exactly what they sound like, an exchange of this money, right here, for these goods, right here. They are finished the moment the agreement is reached, and from then on the ownership of the property is switched.
Contracts and purchases are very similiar concepts, and it's actually pretty obvious that contracts, way back in history, evolved from purchases, but they are not the same thing. If people want to consider purchases 'implicit contracts', it actually works somewhat okay, but they aren't in actual fact.
If purchases were contracts, I could let someone ring something up on a register, and then walk out without paying, because that created 'a contract' to pay, and no one ever specificed when. (And a sane civil court would probably, sans any specific payment date, allow at least until the end of the day to pay, as almost no contract specifies any exact payment time besides 12:01.)
And, no, I'm not a member of the bar, but I did have one explain this to me.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
A contract merely requires Consideration on both sides and Acceptence of the contract by both sides. No 'offer', although for some reason people often try to assert so. An offer is made by one side, whereas a contract is made by two.
Here's the thing--that's flatly against what the lawyers who taught me about contracts said. There's definitly a jurisdictional or grammatical difference here.
I suspect, at the moment, that it's more grammatical and academic than substantive. If you and I agree to yard-care, and I sell you my lawn mower at the same time, and we go sour, we wind up in court either way.
A similar difference is that, for example, while there are torts of "Assault and Battery" are two different terms that mean "frightening someone and harming someone", in NY State there's just the tort of "Assault."
I know that. What I'm saying is that there are problems with that structure. When I go into a store and purchase a piece of software, I want to actually purchase that software, not license it. Software should not fall under copyright law. It may be IP, but it's very different from a book or a movie.
but it really doesn't matter what you want. you dont' buy the software, you buy a license. and it clearly says in the EULA if you don't agree to it you can take it back for a refund- now if the store doens't accept it back, then you go to court w/ the store and get your money back.
So let me get this straight. Just because it's not likely that what I would like to see will actually happen, I shouldn't bother posting and giving my viewpoint?
I didn't say using gui tools made you stupid. I said complaining that the underlying configuration is using config files is stupid. Config files allows people who want to use a gui to use one, and people who need to alter many configs on many machines automatically to be able to do that too. Stupid isn't using a gui, stupid is complaining because you aren't forced to use a gui.
not really sure what this has to do w/ your viewpoint, im simply talking about the license. just because YOU WANT to actually buy the piece of software, doesn't mean they will sell it to you like that. I'd like it to be dispensed in a vending machine for 50cents, but I can't have that. I never said your viewpoint was bad or you shouldn't post it, I simply stated just because you want to buy it, doesn't mean they'll sell it like that.
I'm really having trouble understanding your arguement right now. I disagree with the way software is being treated right now. That was the entire point of my original post. I made no mention of currently being able to get around that. I just called for change. Now, your reply insists that software is handled under copyright law and is licenced for use, not purchased. That parameter had already been established. Why do you keep defending something that's not being challenged?
Registry entries are just settings. It would be silly to claim that you don't have the right to change the settings on software you purchased on your own machine. If they had properly crippled the product they would have compiled the features out, but they didn't.
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
Well, unless you know of a way to erase a non-rewritable DVD and record over it, I'm quite certain that you can't hack a DVD.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
### While I still don't see why this 3rd party stuff can't get into debian non-free
Because the point of third-party releases is to be independed of Debians release cycles, releasing a piece of software and having to wait three years till it makes it into stable is rather useless.
### dpkg --install foo.deb
That brings you back to square one, welcome back in dependency hell. As said, apt-get and third party don't mix to well, manually tweaking around with dpkg doesn't make it any better.
Wouldn't EULA's stand up to scrutiny in court since they are technically contracts of adhesion?
...a contract that heavily restricts one party while leaving the other free (as some standard form printed contracts); implies inequality in bargaining power
A contract of adhesion defined as:
Please don't dispense legal advice if you aren't a lawyer. I think you should say "don't dispense legal advice if you don't know what you're talking about." I am not a lawyer, but I will continue to dispense legal advice when I feel confident that it is correct. Going to a 3-year law school is only one way to learn the law and its application. May the day never come when no one but a lawyer can understand this stuff.
exactly... or something like WinDVD, where the "evaluation" version is actually the full version, but locked with a code. So I suppose WinDVD is exploiting people too ;)
Jeremy
You'll have to read elsewhere on this thread. But it almost certainly does legally bind you. Deal with it.
The fact is, all of them are contingent upon public action. And it doesn't matter what Congress writes into the law; it's a Constitutional requirement.
What I do in my mom's basement is no business of the Federal government. This concept was widely accepted by the geeks who wrote our Constitution.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
I was one of the fellow people who took the challenge, so I agree that Linux and FS are not perfect. Nevertheless, I beleive there is a reason for X being kinda slow. Windows seems so snappy because windows gives the GUI one of the highest priorities on the system, in an effort to make the whole thing seem more responsive (when in reality the GUI is snappy, but programs in the background don't get as good of a slice of the pie). The X GUI is given medium priority, which means it gives equal time to the GUI and the rest of the system.
I'm not exactly sure if this is correct, but I'm just going on what I was told. If someone else knows better, please respond with corrections.
I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion
Uh, no.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Hill v. Gateway 2000 has your answer. See paragraph 17. No, this isn't universal law, but it holds up well enough that you'd be foolish to take the EULA to court as unenforceable.
This is blatantly not true.
Well, you can sleep comfortably now. I don't think that big bad DEC is going to be bothering you any more, old timer.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
No. They don't. There is existing case law on this subject, look it up. The only stipulation is that you have to be able to return it if you don't like the EULA.
Besides microsoft specifically excludes the operating system as being free of viruses when the sell it to you. So did you active it or did the virus because if microsoft can not tell whether the operating system is free of viruses or not, then any thing that occurs on your computer could be as a result viruses inherent with in the operating system.
So your plan is the "A virus upgraded my XP" tactic? Damn, that's lame. Let me know how it goes, I don't see a judge, jury, or your own attorney buying it.
I wouldn't recommend practicing law without a license.
May the day never come when no one but a lawyer can understand this stuff.
It's pretty much here. If you think you know as much law as a lawyer, you're a damned fool (and have one for a client).
How is changing two bytes to unlock hidden functionality "stealing"? When people decide to intentionally cripple a product, they deserve what they get if people figure out how to uncripple it.
I totally agree with you.
Anyone else see a clear parallel between this story and students accessing THEIR OWN uni entrance records??? (which I also think is perfectly legit)
and then they'd charge you more for all versions, to cope with the overhead of compiling different versions of the binaries. THINK ABOUT THIS, it's not difficult to explain, or morally wrong: it's sound commercial sense.
Legally speaking if the manufacturer of the software product can not gaurantee that product as being free of viruses at the original point of sale, any end user of that (possibly virus ridden) product can not be expected to self warrant that product as being virus free and take all legal responsibilities for the actions of that product (which could have occurred because of viral activity, benefit of the doubt is a legal requirement).
I don't upgrade windows, what ever licence I was forced to buy to obtain the hardware that I wanted apart from the odd downgrade for stability (ME to 98 second edition and stale piss to Win2kPro) is the one I put up with, after all it is dual boot and windows is there for gaming only (to cheap to pay for as PSII as well, perhaps a PS3 will tickle my fancy and dual booting to windows to play games will become history).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Link to a previous response by me (thread from a few months ago) detailing some of the differences and how to get around them. Nothing earth shattering, but after using XP Pro at work and XP Home on my personal PC, I figured out how to live with Home.
Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
I'm not sure that covers modifying software.
I'm not either.
But "modifying software" represents criticism if I've ever seen it.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
They already have a history of doing it. For example, read KB834489.
...but NVidia can't really be expected to sell defective equipment. Why not? Don't we all expect Microsoft to sell defective software?
He's right and you're right. That's because copyright violation is both a criminal and civil violation.
fuck you.
I wouldn't recommend practicing law without a license.
It's pretty much here. If you think you know as much law as a lawyer, you're a damned fool (and have one for a client).
To clarify: I don't intend to actually practice law (using the standard disclaimer, "this should not be construed as legal advice.") I know I don't know as much as a lawyer, but I have studied a number of specific areas, such as copyright law. No, I don't advise clients; I admit my advice is worth as much as you pay for it.
Nonetheless, I think you'll find that "preparation of derivative works" is not interpreted as applying to private modification. There's more to the law than the narrow interpretation of the statute itself. For example, on your interpretation, it would appear to be a violation of copyright for me to sell a book that I have purchased. Of course, it is perfectly legal to do so. What copyright secures to the holder is the right to make decisions about initial sales. He or she decides whether to sell or not, at what price, through which publisher, etc. But once the author sells me a copy of the book, it is mine to give or sell to someone else if I wish to.
One piece of evidence that adaptation without reproduction and distribution is not a violation of copyright is section 106A "Moral rights in works of visual art". Section 106A prevents, for example, alteration of a painting, even if the painting is unique. Section 106A would be redundant if section 106 had the meaning you propose.
Another relevant fact is that the statute contains a long list of categories exemplifying derivative works (translation, screenplay, etc.) but never mentions anything like annotation or defacement.
This is a case in which the law is badly written in that the wording used is compatible with the interpretation you suggest but that interpretation was pretty clearly not intended by Congress.
You said nothing about wanting to know all of the terms of any software you have before you purchase it.
Because that's an automatic. All terms should be visible before any transaction takes place, like with your gas purchase example. In that regard, a better anology than my previous one would be if the attendant told me after I bought the gas that I can't put in an octane booster because they sell a "premium" gas with "all the octane I need". That's a perfect example of an unsigned contract I would not honor, even if it was spelled out. I would just do it out of sight. Plus I said I will not be bound by an un-signed contract. I didn't say I wouldn't honor one. In this case, it's a matter of convenience. If I want to do business with that gas station tomorrow, I'll honor the "contract" today. For software I click "Agree" so it will run, but I will not under any circumstances accept any conditions for its use that weren't spelled out behore the purchase. I made my contract with the cashier at the store, not with the manufacturer.
What?
I made my contract with the cashier at the store, not with the manufacturer.
Skip the rest, and stick with this one.
Depending on your jurisdiction, a solid "it's an uncomplicated purchase, and an EULA is an attempt to modify the contract after my agreement, thus voiding my Acceptance" is enough to render the EULA toothless.
OTOH, most EULA terms are based around a common understanding--you may install the software on one computer at a time, and must delete it if you install it anywhere else. The few other terms are likely unenforceable (such as "you may not use clipart to make fun of us") or actually grant more rights to the user than a simple one-copy purchase (such as "you may install this on X computers.")
There are more uses for Remote Desktop than administration.
Well, configuration data needs to be kept somewhere. And we agree that if you can reach a config file to tweak it using the UI that suits you best is a Good Thing.
;)
I'm glad you clarified your statement. At least it only takes you two tries. It usually takes me four or five. And that's on a good day.
This is not a good day.