Slashdot Mirror
Vista's EULA Product Activation Worries
applejax writes "SecurityFocus is running an article regarding some concerns about Vista's activation terms. Do you have the right to use properly purchased but not validated software? What happens if Microsoft deactivates your OS that was legally purchased? The article goes into some detail about Vista's validation and concerns." From the article: "The terms of the Vista EULA, like the current EULA related to the 'Windows Genuine Advantage,' allows Microsoft to unilaterally decide that you have breached the terms of the agreement, and they can essentially disable the software, and possibly deny you access to critical files on your computer without benefit of proof, hearing, testimony or judicial intervention. In fact, if Microsoft is wrong, and your software is, in fact, properly licensed, you probably will be forced to buy a license to another copy of the operating system from Microsoft just to be able to get access to your files, and then you can sue Microsoft for the original license fee."
For those who sleepwalked through past adventures in "keeping you and your data apart": This "feature" exists only for the purpose of DEACTIVATION, so let's be honest and call it that.
Switch to something that's AlwaysActivated(TM): Linux, OS X, BSD, Solaris 10. Then we can talk about genuine advantages. As in "genuine" and "advantageous", rather than "marketingspeak" and "sure to bite you in the ass".
you had me at #!
This is why I'll never upgrade
Does it mention Vista being the only os?? Or you must agree not to use Vista in order to reverse engineer the executable format or clone the libraries?
-b.
Or, I could just not purchase Vista and not have to worry about it.
Problem solved!
bork bork bork!
I've seen this on a lot of non-open source software, not just windows. Even free-as-in-beer non-open-source stuff. Just something to consider. By pointing out Windows as some kind of oddball case, it just tells me they don't read most of their EULAs
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
Hmmm... I think I've heard of that once or twice. I guess it doesn't affect me since I use an OS free of restrictions: Linux. Ballmer can bite me.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
This is why I use my Linux box more and more every day. By the time M$ requires the Vista upgrade, I won't need it anymore. Besides, AIGLX, XGL and Beryl are so much cooler than Aero.
Check out Sabayon
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
This is almost word for word what the fear mongers where saying about XP. Yes software activation is a pain. But so are pirated copies of windows sold as being legit. Which is what this is trying to stop. Yes there will be cracks and work arounds, there allways are. But if your mom buys a computer from the corner store, this will check to make sure that its legit. Microsoft can not remove your access to the files unless they're doing on the fly encryption. They also have no reason to do that. Much like the XP activation, in the case of an illiegal copy Microsoft has been very good about working with the end user to find a resolution.
Bottom line, if you dont like it dont use it. For the non geeks this is a good thing as is the whole bundle of software signing and certs that Microsoft is trying to get out there. People dont want to have to understand how the computer works, they just want to download software and have it do its thing without sending porn spam to half the country. If things like this worry you or you think they're not needed. Then perhaps Windows is not the right OS for you.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
It seems to me Microsoft wants a constant surveillance license check to happen and they took steps to make it happen without considering that the average user is not going to want to deal with these complications and will likely stay with XP or switch to MacOS or an easy Linux install like Ubuntu. Of course, MS will probably respond by end-of-lifeing XP, but will that give them the desired result or alienate more users?
You'd think a multi-billion dollar company would have enough to fund a "common sense" committee somewhere.
-Now I may be an idiot, but there is one thing I am not sir, and that, sir, is an idiot.
Apple don't sell it to run on whitebox (unlike MS). There's no comparison.
(Personally, I don't think it would be good for anyone if they did.)
you had me at #!
"The first problem is, you may think you bought a copy of the operating system. Actually, the OS is still owned by Microsoft."
Not at all sure this is true. Not that, maybe, it makes all that much difference in practice in this particular instance.
If they own it, its an asset, it must have value, be on their books, be depreciated. None of which is true. But it is on your books, and you can depreciate it, write it off against taxes and so on. If we're saying, it is theirs, you have licensed it, by a one time payment with no further obligations to them, how does it differ from a sale except in name?
I suspect that legally what is going on is that you have bought your copy alright. Its just that what you have bought is a product with certain features/limitations, of which activation is one.
This probably doesn't matter when it comes to the present situation, because product activation and so on are just part of the product. But if it were a case of stopping you from moving it from machine A to B to C, it might. If they were to tell you what machine to install it on, it might matter also. Or, whether you can run it under Wine. In all those cases the difference between them and you owning your copy might matter a lot. But not in terms of what features it has.
All the same, I think you bought your copy, and you really do own it.
This needs to be expressed as a TV commercial. An entire business shut down because something went wrong with Vista licensing, with people on the phone to Microsoft support. Listening to music on hold.
Or some guy in a strange city with a laptop that won't work, unable to get help. He calls Microsoft and gets the "visit us on the web at www.microsoft.com" pitch, and he's frantically getting coins from a cafe owner to feed into a pay phone while on hold.
Why should I cut down trees for my mom instead of paying someone?
Why should I build houses for the homeless for free?
Why should I add another $50 bucks on to Bill's pile of unused money?
Is it better to trade my time on opensource stuff for others time on opensource stuff than my money (which took my time to earn) for microsoft's products?
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Not trying to invoke Godwin untastefully, but "They wouldn't do that" has been a fallacy a lot of times before.
1. Any copy WAS a win, 20 years ago. They already are number one. You already have to have their OS (for most applications). You will not choose an alternate system if you can't steal it. You will buy. Nobody I know chooses Linux because he can't pirate Windows (people choose it for the increased liberty).
2. Revoking will essentially generate nothing. People have been writing about DRM/TCPA/Palladium for years. And? Nada. The unwashed masses don't even notice it. You think that would be different when some Joe Blow gets deactivated? Who'd report about it? Slashdot, Digg, maybe some other online media. And? Who reads that? Only people who already know what's cooking. The only way this would get the masses' attention was when it happens in such a style that even the NYT reports about it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re: " ...and then you can sue Microsoft for the original license fee."
Oh, I assure you that it'll be for MUCH more than for for the original licence fee.
Heard any good sigs lately?