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...
To quote the Buckaroo Bonzai movie, Microsoft's locked in monopoly is sined, sealed and delivered. The EULA for Vista provides more evidence Microsoft is the 800 lb. guerilla that doesn't care about potential faceoffs on these issues any more. The article seems to think differently:
I'm not sure how the article's author would see the user base reacting. Pick a different platform? How? At what expense? No, Microsoft has got this one in the bag.
I predicted in the late 90's if Microsoft didn't have to pay real consequences for their business practices, eventually they would be rolling out OSes at any price they wanted and noone would be able to do much about it. This was at a time where hardware dramatically was decreasing in price but Windows, all flavors, continued to sustain an amazingly different cost curve. I predicted eventually:
It looks like we're pretty close to both. I'll continue to do my development in my Linux world, but I'm guessing there will be a momentary raised eyebrow with Microsoft's Vista, Vista's EULA with it's almost amazing restrictions (especially compared with already draconian past EULAs) and then business as usual.
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?
Is not to play
I have the best comment *ever* about this story.
I'll post it as soon as Microsoft oks it.
Have you read my journal today?
If we keep brainstorming great stuff like that, we will be able to do all kinds of awesome stuff, like:
study our own computers' performance.
tell people what we find
share ideas on how to improve them
Before you know it, we'l have "free speech" as I like to call it.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
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.
Microsoft doesn't want us posting benchmarks proving that Vista is worthless...it might hurt their sales.
After reading the Vista EULA while installing a copy at work for compatibility testing, it became very obvious to me that the only way Vista would make it onto any computer I own is if I were to install a pirated copy of Vista Ultimate with all the anti-piracy features removed. I figure that since there's no way in hell I'm going to comply with the EULA, why follow copyright law, either?
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
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 :)
There is indeed an attempt to make EULAs contractually enforceable, the so called Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA).l e applied. The EULA that said otherwise was obviously disregarded.
Wikipedia's article on the subject, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCITA, does however claim the UCITA "has only been passed in two states as of 2004 -- Virginia and Maryland". If you live in one of those, you might be out of luck.
In other jurisdictions, EULAs are probably unenforcable. Wikipedia has another article that covers the US situation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrinkwrap_license.
In Germany, a few years ago Microsoft failed to enforce the EULA that disallowed separate sales of OEM software. The court ruled that an equivalent of the First-sale doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_first_sa
C - the footgun of programming languages
I'm really not sure of this. The gap between console gaming and PC gaming is getting narrower, and there's really nothing but inertia stopping a console manufacturer from using a keyboard and mouse as input devices instead of a dual-analog type controller.
... they also have lower cost of ownership over time (less upgrades).
Consoles have networking and multiplayer and downloadable games, which used to all be hallmarks of the PC
If the console manufacturers don't make it a pain in the ass to develop games (which has always been the bane of their existence in the past; more games come out for the PC than consoles for this reason, I suspect), then it just makes sense that would be the direction things go in.
Pretty much everything you can do with regards to games on a PC, you can do on the next generation of consoles. Windows may have the PC gaming market locked up, but that market may not be as big or as significant as they think it is.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
"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.
but admit that we are dependant on a microsoft OS because of its interoperability with 90% of the programs most computer-savvy people need to survive their day-to-day lives.
Hmmmm, I wouldn't consider you a computer-savvy person if you can't find fully functional if not better Linux replacements for 90% of Microsoft software (except games). Even with games if you are calling yourself "computer savvy" I think you can set up wine or winex or something and get most games to run on Linux. Hmm...I've heard strong cases from people in specific cases (graphics, music editing, some office software), but to say that computer savvy people are dependant on Microsoft OS is a little over the top.
I haven't touched Microsoft software for like 5 years and I guess your comment struck a chord with me, as it implies that I am not "computer savvy", heh.