http://www.microsoft.com/education/license/eula.as p
Software is copied when it is installed on the hard disk of a computer or when it is loaded in the computer's temporary memory (RAM). Copying software without the permission of the author is "copyright infringement," for which the law imposes penalties. For questions about local copyright laws, contact the Business Software Alliance (BSA)
Read those Service Pack EULAs!
14. When I upgrade a Microsoft product, does my EULA for that product change?
Yes, the EULA included with the upgrade version sets forth the license rights for both the original product and the upgrade.
Distribution. Microsoft grants you a non-exclusive, royalty-free right to reproduce and distribute an unlimited number of copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, provided that you: (a) distribute the SOFTWARE PRODUCT in object code form only as part of a software product created by you that runs on the Windows 95 platform, and that adds significant and primary value to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT (the "Licensed Product");
These clothes are beautiful, and don't you forget it!
Performance or Benchmark Testing. You may not disclose the results of any benchmark test of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT to any third party without Microsoft's prior written approval.
By installing, copying, downloading, accessing or otherwise using the Software, You agree to be bound by the terms of this EULA. If You do not agree to the terms of this EULA, Licensor is unwilling to license the Software. In such event, You may not install, copy, download or otherwise use the Software.
Bundling!
NOTE: IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A VALID LICENSE FOR ONE OF THE FOLLOWING PRODUCTS (EACH, A "SOFTWARE PRODUCT"), YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO INSTALL, COPY OR OTHERWISE USE THE SOFTWARE: Microsoft Office 4.2, 95 and subsequent versions, Microsoft Word 6, 97 and subsequent versions, Microsoft Excel 97 and subsequent versions, Microsoft PowerPoint 97 and subsequent versions, Microsoft Access 97 and subsequent versions., Microsoft Outlook 2000 and subsequent versions, Microsoft Publisher 2.0, 3.0, 97 and subsequent versions, Microsoft FrontPage 97 and subsequent versions, Microsoft Home Publishing 99 and subsequent versions, Microsoft PhotoDraw 2000 and subsequent versions, Microsoft Works versions 3, 4, 4.5 and 2000, Microsoft Picture It!, Microsoft Greetings Workshop, and Microsoft Office : Mac.
Censorship and Thought Control!
You may not use or distribute any of the Software that include representations of identifiable individuals, governments, logos, initials, emblems, trademarks, or entities for any commercial purposes or to express or imply any endorsement or association with any product, service, entity, or activity.
More censorship!
You may not create obscene or scandalous works, as defined by federal law at the time the work is created, using the Software.
Yes, O Evil Overlord!
You must indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Microsoft from and against any claims or lawsuits, including attorneys' fees, that arise from or result from the use or distribution of Software as modified by You.
If I was a bastard, I just might run EVERY software license past the legal team. All the installations. All the Service Packs. Everything. Add that to the "Total Cost of Ownership" of the software. Present the next year's budget with those costs in addition to the regular upgrades, etc., plus the cost for liability insurance ("EULA Insurance"). And present an alternate budget for a Free Software setup. That Peruvian guy was right, ya know. Free Software is better for the local economy.
So random people in college computing labs, or public libraries, or internet cafes, etc. must not be bound by the EULAs, since they never "accepted" any license, contract, agreement, etc.
Would someone please post the EULAs for Windows 98, 98SE 2000, XP, the service packs for those OSes, for Office 2000 and XP, and their service packs, and SQL Server 7 and 2000 and their service packs, and for Exchange 5.5 and 2000, and their service packs? I don't have them handy. This might be a great way to alter my next year's budget, which I'm making out now. s/Microsoft/Free Software/, if you get my drift.
It would be even handier if someone could point out the heinous sections of each EULA.
If Bic pens worked only with Bic paper, and Bistich Staplers only worked with Bostich paper, then you'd have an argument. As it is, you don't. No one has a lock on the pen-and-stapler market, and all pens and staplers are interoperable, interchangable, nearly even fungible.
The U.S. government doesn't buy only Lockheed jets. They buy them from a number of companies, and even the British. It's in the government's (and national security) interest to have multiple providers for things.
This risk factor is somewhat mitigated in commercial software, where the distribution is typically through CDs and other trusted media. Of course, someone can still somehow compromise a software developer's network
You must be referring to that time not too long ago when Microsoft's network was compromised, and possibly unknown things placed into the source code for their products.
Just imagine, for a minute, how devastating it would be if Sourceforge was hacked and malicious code was inserted into a ton of the projects without anyone noticing for long enough that it could cause real damage? The danger is clear.
Yes, I suppose it is -- but as the source code for things on Sourceforge exists in many copies all around the globe, it can be cleaned up somewhat more easily than, say Microsoft cleaning up their compromised source code repositories. Assuming they even tried. Some journalist should ask them about that -- "What effort has Microsoft made to inspect and clean their code of viruses, backdoors and trojans inserted when their network security was breached recently?" I'd love to see that question asked by, say, the Wall Street Journal. Or even The Register.
I posted this earlier, but it seems like an appropriate response here.
"If a software application representing 5000 hours uses GPL code that reflects only 100 hours, is the GPL fair in its argument that the entire product is GPL? After all, if proprietary software vendors don't like the terms of a software license, they should not reasonably be expected to abide by it. This point is of considerable concern to software companies who wish to use the work of other without compensation -- 'pirating' the free software, to use a popular industry term. Proponents of the GPL argue that each party in the exchange benefits, which is the basis for a free, capitalist society, but proprietary software vendors don't always like this arrangement. Interestingly, proprietary software vendors often include highly restrictive and draconian licenses with their products, and disallow all use of them by any other developers; this, somehow, is presented by them as the 'fair market solution' -- what's ours is ours, and what's yours is ours."
"Another security concern is that the primary distribution channel for proprietary software is CDROMs of unknown quality and origin, and could contain a critical problem, a backdoor or worse, a dangerous virus. Patches for proprietary software -- which is often released in a buggy state -- are made available over the internet, which isn't a trusted medium -- installing patches from the internet has the potential of making problems with proprietary software worse, not better."
"On a lighter note, while many proprietary software makers wish to use the
'treasure trove' of public domain, Open Source, and Free Software (GPL and similar licenses),
they insist on strong copyright, patent and trademark protection for their own ideas and
products -- in a manner of speaking, wanting to have their cake and eat yours too."
"If a software application representing 5000 hours uses GPL code that reflects only 100 hours,
is the GPL fair in its argument that the entire product is GPL? After all, if proprietary software vendors
don't like the terms of a software license, they should not reasonably be expected to abide by it.
This point is of considerable concern to software companies who wish to use the work of other without compensation
-- 'pirating' the free software, to use a popular industry term.
Proponents of the GPL argue that each party in the exchange benefits, which is the basis for a free, capitalist society,
but proprietary software vendors don't always like this arrangement. Interestingly, proprietary software vendors
often include highly restrictive and draconian licenses with their products, and disallow all use of them by any other developers; this,
somehow, is presented by them as the 'fair market solution' -- what ours it ours, and what's yours is ours."
It should be noted that, under Windows, the OS tries to execute files simply because they are named in a certain way, such as having ".exe", ".bat", ".js", ".vbs", etc. at the end.
Whereas under unix, simply renaming any old file with a ".exe" at the end does not cause the OS to try to load and run it -- "execute" is a specific flag and permission that must be set and granted.
So "just clicking on attachments" will never work under Unix (barring an exceptionally retarded mail client -- and please don't bring up the old, and fixed, Pine buffer overflow; it's not the same thing), and will always work under Windows.
Until MSFT changes this (and how about killing those retarded drive letters while you're at it?), virus, worm, etc. problems will be common on Windows.
I will sometimes use VLC (VideoLAN) rather than by entertainment center DVD player and TV, to watch DVDs with annoying ads, promos, previews, warnings, etc. that cannot be skipped. VLC doesn't understand menus at all -- it just plays the movie. WHICH IS HOW THE GOD DAMMNED THING SHOULD WORK ANYWAY.
Government policy decisions are rarely based on "what works best," because it is the public's money they are spending. The question from a public policy viewpoint, is, is the government providing a huge (and unfair) market advantage to a particular contractor (Microsoft), and treating them differently than other contractors (any defence contractor, for instance)? If so, should that contractor be regulated carefully? Or should there be less favoritism and more standardization (as with defense contracts, where the complete plans for a widget/aircraft/etc are turned over to the government, and work is spread among contractors)?
NTLM will help prevent your initial login credentials from being sniffed easily. But after that, everything is still in plaintext! And Windows has pretty bad packet sequencing (nmap usually says something along the lines of "trivial joke"), making insertion of data, or outright hijacking, easier.
Slashdot Mirror
If I was a bastard, I just might run EVERY software license past the legal team. All the installations. All the Service Packs. Everything. Add that to the "Total Cost of Ownership" of the software. Present the next year's budget with those costs in addition to the regular upgrades, etc., plus the cost for liability insurance ("EULA Insurance"). And present an alternate budget for a Free Software setup. That Peruvian guy was right, ya know. Free Software is better for the local economy.
So random people in college computing labs, or public libraries, or internet cafes, etc. must not be bound by the EULAs, since they never "accepted" any license, contract, agreement, etc.
Simple solution: get a 14-year-old to click all the "accept" buttons. Minors cannot be bound by contracts!
Would someone please post the EULAs for Windows 98, 98SE 2000, XP, the service packs for those OSes, for Office 2000 and XP, and their service packs, and SQL Server 7 and 2000 and their service packs, and for Exchange 5.5 and 2000, and their service packs? I don't have them handy. This might be a great way to alter my next year's budget, which I'm making out now. s/Microsoft/Free Software/, if you get my drift.
It would be even handier if someone could point out the heinous sections of each EULA.
If Bic pens worked only with Bic paper, and Bistich Staplers only worked with Bostich paper, then you'd have an argument. As it is, you don't. No one has a lock on the pen-and-stapler market, and all pens and staplers are interoperable, interchangable, nearly even fungible.
The U.S. government doesn't buy only Lockheed jets. They buy them from a number of companies, and even the British. It's in the government's (and national security) interest to have multiple providers for things.
rpm -Uvh worked for me.
What widget toolkit does it use? And why does it link with libGL?
Flamebait?!? I suppose the original paper was "insightful?" Moron.
No, but apparently the coin-operated ADTI does.
This risk factor is somewhat mitigated in commercial software, where the distribution is typically through CDs and other trusted media. Of course, someone can still somehow compromise a software developer's network
You must be referring to that time not too long ago when Microsoft's network was compromised, and possibly unknown things placed into the source code for their products.
Just imagine, for a minute, how devastating it would be if Sourceforge was hacked and malicious code was inserted into a ton of the projects without anyone noticing for long enough that it could cause real damage? The danger is clear.
Yes, I suppose it is -- but as the source code for things on Sourceforge exists in many copies all around the globe, it can be cleaned up somewhat more easily than, say Microsoft cleaning up their compromised source code repositories. Assuming they even tried. Some journalist should ask them about that -- "What effort has Microsoft made to inspect and clean their code of viruses, backdoors and trojans inserted when their network security was breached recently?" I'd love to see that question asked by, say, the Wall Street Journal. Or even The Register.
I posted this earlier, but it seems like an appropriate response here.
"If a software application representing 5000 hours uses GPL code that reflects only 100 hours, is the GPL fair in its argument that the entire product is GPL? After all, if proprietary software vendors don't like the terms of a software license, they should not reasonably be expected to abide by it. This point is of considerable concern to software companies who wish to use the work of other without compensation -- 'pirating' the free software, to use a popular industry term. Proponents of the GPL argue that each party in the exchange benefits, which is the basis for a free, capitalist society, but proprietary software vendors don't always like this arrangement. Interestingly, proprietary software vendors often include highly restrictive and draconian licenses with their products, and disallow all use of them by any other developers; this, somehow, is presented by them as the 'fair market solution' -- what's ours is ours, and what's yours is ours."
"Another security concern is that the primary distribution channel for proprietary software is CDROMs of unknown quality and origin, and could contain a critical problem, a backdoor or worse, a dangerous virus. Patches for proprietary software -- which is often released in a buggy state -- are made available over the internet, which isn't a trusted medium -- installing patches from the internet has the potential of making problems with proprietary software worse, not better."
"On a lighter note, while many proprietary software makers wish to use the 'treasure trove' of public domain, Open Source, and Free Software (GPL and similar licenses), they insist on strong copyright, patent and trademark protection for their own ideas and products -- in a manner of speaking, wanting to have their cake and eat yours too."
"If a software application representing 5000 hours uses GPL code that reflects only 100 hours, is the GPL fair in its argument that the entire product is GPL? After all, if proprietary software vendors don't like the terms of a software license, they should not reasonably be expected to abide by it. This point is of considerable concern to software companies who wish to use the work of other without compensation -- 'pirating' the free software, to use a popular industry term. Proponents of the GPL argue that each party in the exchange benefits, which is the basis for a free, capitalist society, but proprietary software vendors don't always like this arrangement. Interestingly, proprietary software vendors often include highly restrictive and draconian licenses with their products, and disallow all use of them by any other developers; this, somehow, is presented by them as the 'fair market solution' -- what ours it ours, and what's yours is ours."
It should be noted that, under Windows, the OS tries to execute files simply because they are named in a certain way, such as having ".exe", ".bat", ".js", ".vbs", etc. at the end.
Whereas under unix, simply renaming any old file with a ".exe" at the end does not cause the OS to try to load and run it -- "execute" is a specific flag and permission that must be set and granted.
So "just clicking on attachments" will never work under Unix (barring an exceptionally retarded mail client -- and please don't bring up the old, and fixed, Pine buffer overflow; it's not the same thing), and will always work under Windows.
Until MSFT changes this (and how about killing those retarded drive letters while you're at it?), virus, worm, etc. problems will be common on Windows.
Hehe... "it depends, I haven't looked into it yet."
I will sometimes use VLC (VideoLAN) rather than by entertainment center DVD player and TV, to watch DVDs with annoying ads, promos, previews, warnings, etc. that cannot be skipped. VLC doesn't understand menus at all -- it just plays the movie. WHICH IS HOW THE GOD DAMMNED THING SHOULD WORK ANYWAY.
Guess what folks? ***WE*** are the government.
...
So stop blaming some remote gummint--
I fail to see your point.
Government policy decisions are rarely based on "what works best," because it is the public's money they are spending. The question from a public policy viewpoint, is, is the government providing a huge (and unfair) market advantage to a particular contractor (Microsoft), and treating them differently than other contractors (any defence contractor, for instance)? If so, should that contractor be regulated carefully? Or should there be less favoritism and more standardization (as with defense contracts, where the complete plans for a widget/aircraft/etc are turned over to the government, and work is spread among contractors)?
NTLM will help prevent your initial login credentials from being sniffed easily. But after that, everything is still in plaintext! And Windows has pretty bad packet sequencing (nmap usually says something along the lines of "trivial joke"), making insertion of data, or outright hijacking, easier.
If I got only 5000 hours of driving in my car before it went *(poof)* ...
...then I would say you probably bought a car made by Verizon...
Maybe the admin can just telnet in over a wireless connection and fix the problem!
Windows is so cool!
In other words, while buying XP, you also bought a special tool that resizes lots of images.
It's nice that MSFT provided that program, but it's not in the same league as the flexibility provided by the unix command line.
"It's too late to work within the system and too early to shoot the fuckers."
-- I Forget
it is technically illegal in the US to create and pass unenforceable laws
I'd love to see the reasoning behind that statement. Is it a constitutional issue? Some court precedent? An old law?