Slashdot Mirror
The Self-Modifying EULA?
An anonymous reader asks: "Years ago, when I first installed Windows 2000, I accepted its EULA. Despite serious defects in the product, I resisted installing Service Packs because they modify the original EULA. Now even Homeland Security is on my back to upgrade and install a fix. I would be happy to install SP4 and all the security patches BUT ONLY IF IT IS DONE UNDER THE ORIGINAL EULA. Otherwise, Microsoft has made me an unwilling zombie. The clear fact is that Microsoft delivered a defective product- should not allow them to redefine our agreement. I cannot think of any other market that successfully browbeats its customers in this manner. Can this be legal? Has it been tested in court?"
That certain parts of the update required some sort of change to the EULA? Possibly a new feature or option that was not covered by the original?
Then again, you could always just not accept the EULA and not install it... despite what DHS says. That's why there's another option to select.
If you want the software patch, you accept the new licensing agreement. If you don't want the new EULA, no one is forcing you to download anything. Sounds like a perfectly valid contract to me, but IANAL.
Well submitter, I guess it would be helpful to know what modifications you're complaining about? I can't really find a genuine concern beneath all your rhetoric
Spoken like someone who has never written software of any consequence. All software has bugs. Do you consider every piece of software you own to be defective?
This must be the millionth time I've seen this comment from a smug linux geek...
First of all Linux is what gives me the discomfort and headaches - W2K with SP2 and SR1 is secure and stable thank you very much. Every time I've tried Linux (Debian, Ubuntu and currently Suse) I've faced hardware problems as well as stupid things you need to hack some Make file or the kerner to get it to work. No thanks. W2K just works (and BTW is currently running apache, ssl, vpn etc. - and this is just my home workstation).
Secondly, yes, we all know that OpenBSD and others are up there in the ivory tower but who really gives a shit. Some people actually do work on these stupid machines and have invested years learning one particular operating system. Migrating to Linux would involve a learning curve that only students have time for. And then there is all the software, some of which might be replaceable but in my case not. The closest thing out there is OSX but it has the hardware vendor-lock-in problem with limited support for various things essential to my work. Maybe one day when the world stops supporting W2K.
www.tribalnetworks.org - helping tribal people around the world to own their own means of high-tech communications
I don't think it's quite that simple. For example, if the product was originally advertised as coming with "free security updates", then one could argue that Microsoft is obligated to provide the free updates they advertised under the same terms as the original product. If the EULA isn't enforceable for the original product, then it's probably not enforceable the the service pack. Another example is if you lawfully received the service pack without agreeing to an EULA beforehand (such as if you get an update CD from Microsoft). Or, certain terms in Microsoft's EULAs might also not be enforceable because of their the company's monopoly status.
I'm not actually saying that I *know* that an EULA wouldn't be enforceable, I'm saying that it's not wise to just assume that it is in all cases. Again, talk to a lawyer in your jurisdiction.
http://outcampaign.org/
Transport company X has a fleet of brand Y trucks. It is time to replace a portion of them. So they buy a handfull of brand Z trucks, park them at the entrance then invite the sales rep for brand Y to come by for a talk. "Well we have been thinking of upgrading our fleet of trucks. We are looking for offers, by the way have you seen those new Z trucks? Nice aren't they? So what kinda of deal can we expect from you?"
Then ask them wich OS they buy and how they deal with their OS seller. Watch them be confused.
It is sensible business. If you are a fleet manager and you would come to your boss saying, "Hi boss, I completely standarized on brand Y trucks, our repair shops can repair nothing else, our drivers can drive nothing else, our loading stations can accept nothing else, we are now one hundred procent at their mercy of brand Y. Oh hi Mr Sales rep from Brand Y, why are you grinning like that?"
Such a fleet manager would be fired in an instant.
In IT, that is what has been taking place for the last decade. The same trucking companies that do everything to get their trucks with the cheapest discount hand over their IT to companies selling just one solution and totally tie their entire company to just one supplier.
Insanity but when it comes to IT common business rules do seem to apply.
In holland the goverment tries to keep monopolies from happening. Market forces can after all only work if there is more then one player right?
So we get silly stuff like the attempt to run more then one company on the dutch rail system (crowded in a crowded country) or Shell being stopped from owning more highway gas stations. Or even sillier stuff like privatizing stuff like gas and elec even medical insurance. All meant to drive down price and all the price does is skyrocket up.
And what is done about the ultimate monopoly? Shit all. Forget Shell owning 80% of dutch highway gas stations. Try MS owning 9*% of all the worlds desktops.
Face it. IT doesn't follow normal rules. No you would not accept a new EULA (or any EULA at all) when your car company recalls your car to have your brakes fixed. In IT MS owns your ass and they can do whatever they want.
But it easy to buy another brand of truck. For proof, just look at your big local trucking company, they almost always got a handfull of trucks of another manufacturer. Keeps your supplier on its toes and the costs are trivial. Now try doing the same with computers. Oh it used to be done. Only a very BAD IT manager would not make sure that his IBM datacenter did not have a couple of Sun machines installed in plain sight. But when it comes to desktops we have come to accept lock-in (says a linux user and someone who refuses to answer personal ads that accept only .doc cv's) and we all can see the result.
Accept lock-in and get locked in. Yet the old trick does work. Look at munich. MS sales rep fell all over himself when he came into his clients office and saw the linux trucks parked outside. In fact MS wherever there is a rumor that a linux truck is even passing MS sends its sales reps with freebies and special deals. And still, the majority of sales meetings with MS go like this. "Ah thank you for your replying to my outlook email, can we shedule a meeting in outlook, I will get your details from access, to meet up and discuss us buying 100 more licenses, I will send you the details in a Word document, btw what kind of pricecut can we look forward too?"
You can hardly blame MS for it can you? Not their fault that everyone has their head up their ass when it comes to IT.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
In any reasonable market, flaws impacting the safe use of a tool for its intended purpose should be fixed at the manufacturer's expense in a reasonable length of time.
If Microsoft isn't providing secure software (and yes, they aren't), then they should be providing free security fixes under the same terms they provided the original software. To do otherwise is (IMNSHO) to be an accessory to any illegal activities which occur as a result of the flaws.
I think you're completely missing the point, here.
He's not disputing the fact that he needs to install the patches for security reasons. He's upset because this puts him in a situation where he has no other choice other than to agree to the new contract. This is an unfair situation. Microsoft should be providing the patches without any additional conditions.
If anyone buys anything off the shelf for security, they probably haven't done their homework.
Linux is, in general, significantly better than windows, security-wise, but that isn't really saying much.
If you really want security, start with something like openbsd, keep on top of updates, and expect that any changes you make to get the system usable/useful are probably going to leave you more vulnerable to attack. And never, ever, think that you're completely secure.
Above all else, remember that all software sucks.
Does it matter? An EULA is a contract. Vendors like Microsoft assert the right to unilaterally change an existing contract. The very notion is offensive.
The good news is that I'm pretty sure that the new EULA is legally unenforceable. It's a well-established principle in law that you can't do that. Congress seems to believe that anything that content producers do is legal and anything that consumers do is not, but I can't imagine that courts would find any merit at all in that position.
"Offering" a patch while tying it to a different license is entirely unreasonable, and amounts to the same thing as not offering the patch at all.
In fact, what it amounts to is extortion -- an "agree to my [new, unreasonable] terms or the software dies" kind of thing.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz