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!
is this water getting toasty, or what?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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"
I'd be willing to bet that it would never get this far and MS would just take care of it. They wouldn't be afraid of someone suing them over a license. That's petty to them. Maybe if a company sued because their software was legal and got a false positive on being illegal and it caused down time, now that's something to sue about. It's a shame that Microsoft doesn't care about their customers enough to make sure things like this wouldn't happen.
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
I guess "Microsoft deactivated my Windows license last night, I couldn't finish my paper." will become a common and valid excuse.
I wonder about the software functions which are there to enforce these bits of the EULA. How secureare they? How easy do you suppose it will eventually become for anyone to point a script at a Vista box owned by someone they don't like, and send instructions for the box to shut down with extreme prejudice and turn the user's data into chunky salsa?
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
I have learned some valuable lessons regarding my data. I keep all my stuff on my external drives. Hope it will not be affected in case I decide to use Vista.
and then you can sue Microsoft for the original license fee.
I thought the new vogue in EULAs nowaways was a clause stating that by using the software, you give up the right to any litigation?
Over here in the OS X toad pond it's nice and cool.
I hear the newts over in the Linux pool have the ideal temperature though...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Ballmer can bite me.
I believe he would rather squirt you a picture of his kids.
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.
I see having two (three) computers going forward.
1) A linux box that I use for important data - tax records, personal documents, any think like mp3's, etc.
2) A windows box that I use for entertainment (certain games) and at large companies. Since computers have been powerful enough for home use since about 2000, I can't see paying more than $499 for this and then $200 for a video card. The hardware would cost me $400 to scratch build (and $200 for the card) so I guess the OEM is splitting the $99 with Microsoft. Going forward, i'm less and less likely to use Windows computers for anything important. I'm too concerned about snooping, losing access to my own data, etc.
3) And a console for pure gaming on my big screen TV.
---
To reach this point, I've converted about 99% of my software to java, open-source applications.
Openoffice
Audacity
Gimp
Azureus
Firefox
and a few other minor programs.
I have two documents that I have to use Word for. I'm considering splitting them down into smaller documents.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
This is exactly why I bought a Mac. Because I understand the underlying nature of the operating system. I know what is and isn't on the thing. I know what DRM is installed on the thing. And I know that by purchasing the hardware I am granted a license to run the Operating System. And I don't need to worry about apple disabling my computer down the road. I'm sure someone will point me at the tyrannical and cyncial nature of OS X's Eula as well (And yes I know about the broad ranging data sharing) but the fact is, these agreements have so far crossed the line that I doubt any of it will remain enforcable in a court of law. I'd install Linux on the thing, except Microsoft has its hooks into that as well, at least according to its lawyers.
What happens when somebody in the Redmond Bunker mistypes something and deactivates Sally Jones instead of Wally Jones? Or what if some enterprising young hothead cracks his way into the validation servers and starts deactivating people at random? What if they go out of business? What happens to my data then?
I won't allow some company in some foreign country to control whether I have access to my data or not.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
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.
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.
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
Worried about all that activation crap? Unplug your Windows box from the net! I did, and you can too.
Here's whatcha do.
Doesn't really work for online gaming yet, but it will just as soon as the guys at VMWare fully support DX9.
Enjoy!
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Than this for years. The problem with licensing software is that eventually the customer will under the license they areee to have no rights at all. Most online games already have the right to take your money and give you nothing in return. Many online games already do that "take your money and good-bye" on a whim. See the latest rounds of bannings from World of Warcraft as an example. I'm sure some of those people were innocent and had just forked over $175 for a six month subscription. "No refunds and no software because we can." - the future of software licensing.
Thanks to eating disorders most chicks are reasonably good looking these days.
Given that Vista now "calls home" every few months to re-validate itself, I guess that rules out using Vista in any type of secure environment where Internet access is not allowed.
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?
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.
Squirrel!
The *only* way MS will change their ways is if they see a hit to "the bottom line". Unfortunatly I fear that, just as with Wal*Mart
Heck, Walmart now sales PCs with Linux preinstalled now.
Right now Linux and MacOS are not options for much of the computer-owning/using population. Why? Games. Virtually none of the games most commonly played right now function in *either* platform.
I know I don't, and I know of noone else who buys and plays games much. Many of those who are game players have playstations or another game console, and those who have computers use them to get things done, check email, and surf the net. At the same tyme you're saying Macs don't have games I hear others say they wouldn't get a Mac because all they are good for is playing plays.
if Apple finally got their head out of their ass and offered their OS to the x86 using population
Apple isn't a software company, or a hardware company. Apple IS a Systems Company with both hardware and software that just work together. Apple has previously licensed Mac OS to clone makers but found out that the clone makers were draining Apple's sales. They lost more in declining hardware sales than they made in licensing Mac OS. So when they brought him back, Steve Jobs stopped the bleeding by stopping licensing Mac OS. However even if Apple were to make it work there's one big problem with licensing OSX, the 800lb gorilla that is Microsoft. Apple would be entering into direct competition with MS, and we all know how MS deals with competitors, Balmer throws his chairs around screaming he'll kill them.
FalconShould there be a Law?