Slashdot Mirror
Surprises in Microsoft Vista's EULA
androthi writes "Scott Granneman takes a look at some surprises in Microsoft Vista's EULA that limit what security professionals and others can do with the new operating system. You want to post benchmarking results? Well, Microsoft may now have a say in it. Vista's EULA no longer shows up on Microsoft's software licensing page, but does still exist — also take note of Windows DRM deciding what you can and can not listen to, and Defender deciding and removing what it considers spyware automatically (by default)."
I don't 'sign' the EULA when i use a public machine...
Defender automatically removing stuff without the user knowing. That's just asking for problems. How long before there's a widespread outbreak of Defender deleting perfectly legitimate software?
"Given away" might be a bit strong, but yes.
I wonder which happened:
1) OEM companies didn't like that a person could buy off-the-shelf components to make a cheaper, faster, and more reliable machine. They then asked MS to make this more expensive for the user.
2) MS realized that most of their OS sales was to OEM companies, and that they could rip off consumers buying the OS unbundled.
What are we paying for now that we weren't getting 10 years ago? Fancier versions of Media Player (which happen to get worse and worse with every iteration)?
There are only restrictions involved in posting benchmarks for .NET 3.0 . And these restrictions only require that you state what version you were using and the methodology you took. It doesn't have any restrictions on "bad" results or any attempt to stop people from reporting accurate results. They wrote these restrictions to prevent people from testing .NET on a 386 and then JAVA on a 3 GHZ and saying "See JAVA is faster!" and it's similar to the restrictions for .NET 1.1 and 2.0... it's just because it's bundled with Vista that it's now included with the Vista EULA.
Where to start... .NET Framework components. I do not see this being some great ending of benchmarking the Windows OS. Also, the link for further information does not (currently?) work. So, this could just be an issue that isn't an issue at all.
1. The benchmark testing and posting applies to
2. This version argument is really tiring. In some ways I see their logic, in other ways I think the six version idea is stupid. Actually, there are more versions of XP then two. Technically, there are four. Windows Media Center Edition and Starter Edition. I imagine Starter Vista will be virtually unseen like XP SE. As for Win MCE, I suppose that would be Home Premium. XP Home = Vista Home, XP Pro = Vista Business. Guess this only leaves two extraneous versions...
3. The Virtualization argument is pointless. How many home users do virtualization? How many business (which do the most virtualization) actually use XP Home licenses? I really think this is a non-issue like #1.
4. The license transfer is more stringent version of the current license transfer. The example they give is a bit weak. At work, if you get a new workstation? I seriously think that corporate licensing will have provisions for this sort of thing. How many people buy their own work computer licenses? Unless you own your own business, not many. Most home users keep a machine for several years. If you assume a home user is on a 3-year replacement cycle (the most common business practice I have found), they will probably only need a single transfer before the new OS is out (though after this, you never know.) Also, how many new PC purchases do not come with a new license?
I by no means am a Microsoft supporter. I have said on multiple occassions that Windows XP would be the last Windows OS I would ever use. I intend on changing my mom to Linux when XP support disappears. I do think that some of these arguments are very bogus though. There are plenty of other reasons to hate Vista, including the evil DRM, more Microsoft monopoly violations, and stupid, half-assed "security" tools.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
I know there is a Mac version of office. But it doesn't have the VBA components that drive many corporations.
That's okay. All the companies still paying Office licensing fees and relying on VBA for internal apps will be crushed by the competition in a few years anyway :)
"Can you cite case law holding EULAs valid?"
Law is not a permissive pursuit--it's a limiting field. That is, it's legal until it's ruled illegal. Still, if you need examples, ProCD v. Zeidenberg is the de facto standard here. There have been other, smaller cases in a number of states as well. Further, there has been no case that has categorically overturned EULAs.
"More specifically, can you cite case law upholding contractual terms entered into under duress?
In what way are users under duress when opting to install software? "How about terms which are unavailable until or altered after a transaction has taken place?"
Those would fall under the umbrella of invalid terms, depending on the case. Note that terms are available for most major products prior to purchase on the website--just as laws are available to the public to read before an individual chooses to act. "I didn't know" is not in itself a valid legal defense, unless you were prevented from knowing.
"Can you then demonstrate that, once the terms of contract become available (during the installation process), a refund is easily obtained by the end user?" You fail to make the distinction between the EULA and the company honoring its side of the agreement. If you decline the terms of a software license, you are entitled to return the software. The fact that Microsoft doesn't honor that provision is not a consequence of a EULA existing, but rather a business practice in noncompliance with their stated terms. You may freely sue away in an attempt to get a court order compelling Microsoft to give you that refund, but it has no bearing on EULA validity.