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."

20 of 439 comments (clear)

  1. Yet another WINDOWS GENUINE DISADVANTAGE by toby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 #!
    1. Re:Yet another WINDOWS GENUINE DISADVANTAGE by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Switch to something that's AlwaysActivated(TM): Linux, OS X, BSD, Solaris 10.


      I just know I'm gonna get modded down for this, but who cares?

      Wait. Who said that OS X is 'always activated'? That's true if you run OS X on only Apple hardware, but switch to some non-Apple hardware and your 'AlwaysActivated(TM)' turns into 'NeverActivated(TM)'. OS X should work with any hardware, just as Solaris does. (And, yes, Solaris Sparc will work on Sparc-based clones that are not manufactured by Sun)

      Why do people want to give Apple a break for exhibiting the same behavior that Microsoft gets lambasted for?
    2. Re:Yet another WINDOWS GENUINE DISADVANTAGE by P.+Niss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why do people want to give Apple a break for exhibiting the same behavior that Microsoft gets lambasted for?

      Perhaps because Apple is not exhibiting the same behavior in this case? I hope you can appreciate the difference between 1) Windows Vista may stop running on a PC it was intended to work on because Microsoft decides that you're running a "non-genuine" copy; and 2) Mac OS X never works on a machine that no one, most relevantly Apple, ever said it would work on.

      OS X should work with any hardware, just as Solaris does.

      Why? Because you said so? Shouldn't the above read, "I want OS X to work with any hardware?"

  2. Could this be illegal? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Putting "bombs" in software that you create is generally frowned upon by the law, if only because it comes dangerously close to extortion. If MS starts deactivating legit copies of Vista after the fact or demanding money, I suspect that there'd be legal hell to pay. In the same sort of way that if you're in the mafia and you get caught saying "pay up or I'll burn your store down" you'll probably end up in jail.


    -b.

    1. Re:Could this be illegal? by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Microsoft has broken the law before, and been found guilty. Nothing substantial happened.

    2. Re:Could this be illegal? by spellraiser · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm willing to bet both arms and both legs that Microsoft has this one covered legally. The writing of EULAs has become a finely honed art. They will cover this in the EULA, and there won't be a damn thing that people who have agreed to the EULA can do about it.

      The only real escape is not to use Vista.

      --
      I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
  3. Or... by michrech · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or, I could just not purchase Vista and not have to worry about it.

    Problem solved!

    --
    bork bork bork!
    1. Re:Or... by michrech · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I installed Vista and longhorn over the weekend to test them out. Well, I should say I tried to install Longhorn...it would get to the end of the install and then crash out every time. Vista being the main subject though, I will stick to that. I spent several hours with it exploring the features and trying out different operations I might do in a typical day. Overall it felt like a recurring nightmare...the nightmare that was Windows ME. Much added bloat with little material gain. Like windows ME, it adds out of the box support for some additional hardware that previous versions didn't. Like Windows ME, it consumes more resources then previous versions (for no appearant reason). Like Windows ME its highly unstable so far (I had Explorer crash countless times doing things as mundane as browsing a network share or checking my e-mail). The one thing it does "better" then Windows ME is that it actually breaks driver support for alot of current hardware (couldn't get the embedded sound working on a motherboard that is only a year old or use my printer). I have trouble imagining how feature-poor the lower editions will be, but the Ultimate edition has little more then XP did. The only good things I can say about it are the included support for iSCSI, addition of a pretty good chess game, and inclusion of a DVD authoring program. Given the pricing of the Ultimate edition, its not at all worth it (buy a 3rd party chess program, iSCSI driver, and DVD authoring software and you will come out ahead financially)

      My experiences with Vista are rather different from yours. I like a good portion of how the interface has changed. I don't like how much has changed (re: the control panel, or how they split lots of the configuration options up into spearate windows, cluttering up what was once rather tidy (but could have been improved further)). It's never crashed on me (not even once!), though it did take a few betas before it supported the onboard sound in my HP z2308wm laptop. ATI has yet (to my knowledge) to make their graphics driver support OpenGL, so I have been unable to play City of Heroes/Villains in it.

      In my job, I've also been running it on a Dell GX280 (P4 3.6, 1gb RAM, 80gb SATA) with little problems either. Very soon we'll have our Vista Enterprise edition for me to load up on the PC to evaluate how soon we are going to switch (lets just say it's not going to happen at *least* for the coming year).

      Oh, by the way...I was running on 2Ghz athlon64 with 1gb of ram, Gamer's video card and SATA hard drive and performance was abysmal. Turning off the Aero features made clicking between file browsing windows a little less painful, but still not very responsive. I didn't see any benefit to the Aero features for the average user anyway. Based on this experience, I am declaring Vista the most skippable Windows version since ME. Hopefully, MSFT will come back and redeem themselves with a truely worthly OS like they did with Win2K.

      Either your computer is screwed up in some way, or you used a fairly early beta (and, if that is the case, you really should try a much more "final" version before being so venemous while speaking of the product). I'm sure it has it's problems, but it's not quite *that* bad.

      --
      bork bork bork!
  4. The amusing thing about this is... by jimstapleton · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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"
    1. Re:The amusing thing about this is... by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is true. Largely, the reason for EULAs is so that software companies can claim full rights over everything and no responsibility so that they can absolve themselves from lawsuits no matter what happens on your computer. Whether they cause a problem by accident, purposefully, or not at all, they don't want to be sued.

      The problem is, when you pair this with something like Microsoft's activation/WGA scheme, it means that they can cause otherwise working software to cease to work for any reason whatsoever and the user has no recourse.

      Personally, I think that Congress should pass some laws that would replace a basic/general EULA, i.e. software makers aren't responsible for most things unless they make claims to the contrary or cause purposeful damage. Instead of EULAs, we should have a general consensus of what rights/responsibilities/powers we generally grant to software authors vs. their customers. Then we should allow EULAs in certain circumstances where they're merited, but not allow other terms to be in EULAs. For example, no EULA should grant spyware and virus makers to take permanent control of a user's PC.

      However, my point is that EULAs are stupid. It's an issue that should be worked out by lawyers and law-makers, because it makes no sense for end-users to be entering into legalistic license agreements, different individually for every piece of software they run, when nobody understands what the terms actually allow.

      And in no case should Microsoft be allowed to cause my computer to stop working because an automated system is suspicious that my license might possibly be invalid.

  5. Other options by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  6. They said the same thing about XP. by Kenja · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?"
  7. because it doesn't by toby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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 #!
    1. Re:because it doesn't by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Insightful
      With OS X's DRM, I'm locked into Apple hardware. That's right vendor lock-in. Without OS X, I won't be able to get at my data, either.

      You're locked into your existing hardware and possibly your existing OS (if newer versions of OS X won't run on your old Mac). No one is threatening to render your old Mac unusable.

      -b.

    2. Re:because it doesn't by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Apple don't sell it to run on whitebox (unlike MS). There's no comparison.


      It shouldn't matter. If I go and buy the complete OS X product in a box, I should be allowed to run it on my toaster if I can figure out how to do so. Whether or not Apple would be keen to support my toaster configuration is another story. But to have licensing restrictions as to what I can do with a product after purchasing it is counter to basic consumer rights.
    3. Re:because it doesn't by ceoyoyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No... MS wants to be able to disable your computer because they decided to.

      The only way your Mac gets disabled is if it dies a natural or unnatural death, totally independently from Apple. If Apple decided that your Mac will only work when it has a working Internet connection and they can disable it on a whim, then I'd agree it's the same thing.

  8. Re:To be honest by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  9. Re:Upgrade by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I use Linux where I can, and where I can't I try to use OSX rather than Windows. Still, there are times where I have to use Windows. I have no choice.

    In the end, I'm not on a quest to end closed-source software, or even get rid of Microsoft. I just want Microsoft to stop doing crappy things to hurt their own customers, and if they won't, then I think their customers should organize a formal boycott. We should make an example out of them for other software companies to see: Pull something like this activation/WGA crap, and your customers won't put up with it. Microsoft isn't the only offender, and all the activation, forced registration, dongles, etc. in the software industry is ridiculous. It hurts customers, but real pirates just find a way to circumvent these restrictions.

    I'd like to start a website where people can voice their annoyance, sign a petition, see others' opinions, and generally organize a formal boycott. I'm sure lots of tech-savvy Windows users will not be upgrading anyway, but I think it's important to send a message to Microsoft as to why. However, I'm sure that there's someone out there who is more militant and web/tech savvy than I am, who'd do a better job setting it up.

  10. Re:Upgrade by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Meanwhile, you're still paying money to businesses who are putting their resources towards efforts to make your life harder, rather than efforts to make your life easier. For every "fix" or "work-around", you're still exerting extra effort where you just shouldn't need to. You're making your software buggier, and your music lower-quality for what it essentially 0 net-gain for anyone. And by buying the products that do this, you're sending the message to these companies that it is acceptable behavior, and that their efforts are good.

    If you buy Vista, even if you crack it, you're telling Microsoft that their product is good. Buy pirating it and cracking it, you're telling them that their product is good, but that their "piracy protection" isn't good enough, and that they should put more resources on that front. But the only way to tell them that these "features" are unacceptable is to refuse to buy it or use it. And what will you have lost anyway, by not using Vista? What does Vista actually give you that Windows XP doesn't? Incompatibility and the need to buy new versions of the software you've already bought.

    If Microsoft isn't servicing your needs, then you need to let them know. Even if we all simply refuse to buy it, Microsoft will claim that the reason Vista isn't selling is due to piracy, and their lobbyists will put forth a case that this means we need more restrictive laws on software use. It's important that, instead, we make a public case that Vista is not a good product.

  11. Re:Upgrade by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What you should do instead is start a campaign to educate whomever is in charge of making platform decisions at companies/schools/governments.

    What you're talking about would still be a "boycott". I am, in fact, the decision-maker for an IT department, and I can tell you that I am not going to be upgrading to Vista anytime soon. I've talked to some of my peers (in other companies), and they aren't exactly eager to upgrade, either. When I suggest a "formal" boycott, I'm saying that instead of just not-buying Vista, we could publicly talk about why we aren't buying it, in order to spread the word and raise awareness of these issues. The truth is, your Directors of [whatever] and Chief [whatever] Officers aren't all PHBs who make arbitrary decisions. However, many of them aren't reading obscure Slashdot postings, and if general public awareness is very low, they might not be aware. They aren't hearing about it on the news, and Microsoft has their marketing people out in force. I believe that this is one instance where fear, uncertainty, and doubt is valid.