Makes me think of the games we used to play, one was to line up holding hands and people would try to run through your line, I'm pretty sure a game like that is banned.
"Red rover, red rover, sent Timmy over!"
Wow, I hadn't thought about that for ages. (I'm not all that old either, so there's still hope this nonsense will be temporary...)
So what do you tell kids who get punished when challenging what a teacher says? How about when their science teacher at a public school tells that that the bible has the _true_ answers?
Forget that, what do you tell kids who get punished when challenging their teacher's statements that a km is greater than a mile?
The letter is suspicious, and it's not clear that it should be taken at face value, but...
Wrong, there are no terms that restrict how you can *use* Linux. The GPL doesn't, in fact it explicitly says that it isn't binding on users. And it also explicitly states that you can't add terms, which includes terms that are binding on users.
The GPL *only* applies if you *distribute* Linux or a derivative work of it.
You don't really use it in your day-to-day desktop experience
Wrong. At least, for me now. The beta drivers 9625 (which incidentally fix this bug) also implement a number of XGL-like features directly in the driver, which can be used by window managers like compitz and metacity and (what I just got working about an hour ago) beryl. This can give you eye candy galore.
Some of it is silly, some is flat out obnoxious, but there are some neat abilities, like good transparency.
The drivers on that page are "BETA". Not released.
No, the drivers on that page are "beta". Released.
Or else how did I get this line here:
$ emerge -p nvidia-drivers
These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
Calculating dependencies... done! [ebuild R ] x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-1.0.9625
Oh look, it's saying I have build 9625!
In fact, I just installed it yesterday so that I could use the XGL-like effects they provide. And yes, they are in beta. (And when I startx, the Nvidia splashscreen says so.)
Do you really think the postmaster general or someone is sitting in a room with his fingertips together laughing manically because he gets to remove the mailboxes?
Might it actually be for the same sorts of fiscal concerns given above?
The only thing that really seems all that different is the VM rule, which is just a bunch of crap. What difference does it make to them? They then get TWO licenses for my ONE PC. That's dumb for them to deny!
I'm not sure they deny that either... the wording of the EULA isn't very clear on this point IMO, but I think it can easily be read to say that you can't use the SAME license for both the host and guest OS. (I'm assuming something like VMWare here and not a hypervisor that runs on bare iron.) In fact, given the two interpretations... I would favor that one.
And your quotation makes it sound like the real issue is that you can't install Vista, install virtualization software, then install that same copy of vista in the virtualization software. Gotta have another license. This really has nothing to do with being able to run Vista in a virtualized environment (as so many people seem to think).
I agree, but I don't think that it's terribly clear from the license wording.
The biggest issue all of this illustrates is how unreasonable software licenses are.
And how you shouldn't trust/. for actual, correct news. (Hint: at least the ISO part of the blurb is also complete fud. (Except without the doubt bit...)
However, I'm not sure that the licensing terms would apply to hardware virtualisation, same way that multi-core processors and multi-processor systems are licensed differently.
Not by my reading... the clause says:
USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.
No offense, but I don't see how this can be interpreted to not include hardware VT.
I can't imagine anyone using a VT or Pacifica enabled chip using home basic or the other one though, aside from cost there isn't really any need for "home" users to run multiple instances using hardware emulation at this time.
Then it's not a problem for software VM either for the same reason, wouldn't you say?
The/. submitter didn't make the mistake so much as the original poster of the blog he linked to. ("Mistake" very well may be too kind, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt...)
I don't even think that changing the wording to Vista ISOs make any difference.
Your legal theories leave a lot to be desired. MS could very well sell Windows and say "you just can't take advantage of your Pacifica technology." The fact that they would be selling to AMD customers wouldn't hurt their court argument really in the least.
Think of it this way. It's very easy to run ntdll through a disassembler. Yet this is prohibited by the EULA. It's very easy to copy your CD and give it to friends. This is prohibited by the EULA and copyright law. Saying it's very easy to run Vista under a hardware VM doesn't make that clause any less valid than it would be if it were hard to do. (How valid that is is subject to debate.)
So yes, hardware virtualization would make it so that it was only enforced by the terms of the EULA. But most of the EULA is only enforced through terms of the EULA.
(BTW, Intel too has a HW virtualization technology called x86 VT, which is in its second generation with the Core. So if they couldn't sell to AMD, then they can't sell to Intel customers, and their market is pretty small.)
AMD Pacifica and Intel x86 VT technology (which provide hardware VM) I think prevent Red Pill from working, and they actually DO virtualize the IDTR. It's an open question whether it's possible to make a hypervisor that can completely hide itself.
It is unclear if it refuses to run in a VM environment, or if the restriction is purely based on the EULA.
Pre-hardware VM technology (AMD Pacifica and Intel x86 VT), any VM that worked at a usable speed (read: VMWare) could be almost trivially detected by any OS that cared. It would be possible then to make it so that it performs this check, and it you're in a VM it essentially stops running.
Pacifica and VT change the game, because they allow (maybe?) complete virtualization from the hardware. Turns out that at least VMWare says that their software is several times faster for most tasks than even the second-generation VT in the Core, so time will tell how practical this is.
On the other hand still, there are good security reasons why chip manufacturers might want to put in an instruction explicitly to tell whether you're running in a hardware VM...
Can someone explain where the ISO comment came from? I can't find anything that would seem to prevent anything regarding ISOs. "ISO" doesn't appear in the document, nor does "CD." "Image" and "Media" don't appear in any related context.
Just because the CPU supports AMD Pacifica doesn't mean that it has to be in use. Besides, it's almost certainly just a legal, license restriction, not an enforced one within the kernel.
Perhaps you might say HOW you think it will kill Vista? 95% of the people who will be running it won't know what the heck virtualization is.
The Smoking Gun's Legal Document of the Year from a couple years ago is a brief filed in defense of someone accused of disorderly conduct and interfering with the staff, faculty, or students of an educational institutional for swearing at the principal did a Google search for the phrases "fuck," "fucking," "fucker," "mom," "baseball," "apple pies," "Chevrolet," "freedom of speech," "first amendment," "unconstitutional," and "sticks and stones may break my bones" and included the number of hits in the legal brief.
The whole document is absolutely hilarious; next time you start to get cynical towards lawyers take a look, and you'll see at least one good guy out there.;-) (And a public defender no less.)
If you're installing another OS you'd be going around Windows's protections anyway, so without HW support it can't do anything about it. I'm solely talking about what happens WHILE you're your running Windows itself, because that's the case for 99% of users.
(There probably is a Linux system that has an installer you can run from Windows itself, but I can't name one off the top of my head and haven't ever seen it personally. This wouldn't be possible.)
Slashdot Mirror
"The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense."
- Tom Clancy
That's not true. It's perfectly allowed to take the stairs. Here's some equipment you'll need, though.
but it is true, lawyers and politicians are 100% to blame for the mess that is our current legal system.
Yeah, damn them for creating greedy bastards.
Most lawyers are conservative? See ACLU for direct proof to the contrary.
Because most lawyers are part of the ACLU, which arguibly isn't even liberal?
Makes me think of the games we used to play, one was to line up holding hands and people would try to run through your line, I'm pretty sure a game like that is banned.
"Red rover, red rover, sent Timmy over!"
Wow, I hadn't thought about that for ages. (I'm not all that old either, so there's still hope this nonsense will be temporary...)
So what do you tell kids who get punished when challenging what a teacher says? How about when their science teacher at a public school tells that that the bible has the _true_ answers?
Forget that, what do you tell kids who get punished when challenging their teacher's statements that a km is greater than a mile?
The letter is suspicious, and it's not clear that it should be taken at face value, but...
Ok, kidding aside, I actually did manage to end up with stitches in my eyebrow from a game of tag when I was young
I got stitches in my head once when I was hit in the head by our screen door. (In retrospect, that might explain a lot...) I vote we should ban doors.
(Not directed at you because you're not in favor of this nonsense.)
Wrong, there are no terms that restrict how you can *use* Linux. The GPL doesn't, in fact it explicitly says that it isn't binding on users. And it also explicitly states that you can't add terms, which includes terms that are binding on users.
The GPL *only* applies if you *distribute* Linux or a derivative work of it.
You don't really use it in your day-to-day desktop experience
Wrong. At least, for me now. The beta drivers 9625 (which incidentally fix this bug) also implement a number of XGL-like features directly in the driver, which can be used by window managers like compitz and metacity and (what I just got working about an hour ago) beryl. This can give you eye candy galore.
Some of it is silly, some is flat out obnoxious, but there are some neat abilities, like good transparency.
No, the drivers on that page are "beta". Released.
Or else how did I get this line here:
Oh look, it's saying I have build 9625!
In fact, I just installed it yesterday so that I could use the XGL-like effects they provide. And yes, they are in beta. (And when I startx, the Nvidia splashscreen says so.)
Do you really think the postmaster general or someone is sitting in a room with his fingertips together laughing manically because he gets to remove the mailboxes?
Might it actually be for the same sorts of fiscal concerns given above?
The only thing that really seems all that different is the VM rule, which is just a bunch of crap. What difference does it make to them? They then get TWO licenses for my ONE PC. That's dumb for them to deny!
I'm not sure they deny that either... the wording of the EULA isn't very clear on this point IMO, but I think it can easily be read to say that you can't use the SAME license for both the host and guest OS. (I'm assuming something like VMWare here and not a hypervisor that runs on bare iron.) In fact, given the two interpretations... I would favor that one.
Or you could, you know, actually not trust random blog posts that are totally wrong.
Games are gonna start requiring directx 10 at some point (e.g. Halo 2 for PC) which will only be available on Vista.
And your quotation makes it sound like the real issue is that you can't install Vista, install virtualization software, then install that same copy of vista in the virtualization software. Gotta have another license. This really has nothing to do with being able to run Vista in a virtualized environment (as so many people seem to think).
/. for actual, correct news. (Hint: at least the ISO part of the blurb is also complete fud. (Except without the doubt bit...)
I agree, but I don't think that it's terribly clear from the license wording.
The biggest issue all of this illustrates is how unreasonable software licenses are.
And how you shouldn't trust
Not by my reading... the clause says:
No offense, but I don't see how this can be interpreted to not include hardware VT.
I can't imagine anyone using a VT or Pacifica enabled chip using home basic or the other one though, aside from cost there isn't really any need for "home" users to run multiple instances using hardware emulation at this time.
Then it's not a problem for software VM either for the same reason, wouldn't you say?
The /. submitter didn't make the mistake so much as the original poster of the blog he linked to. ("Mistake" very well may be too kind, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt...)
I don't even think that changing the wording to Vista ISOs make any difference.
Your legal theories leave a lot to be desired. MS could very well sell Windows and say "you just can't take advantage of your Pacifica technology." The fact that they would be selling to AMD customers wouldn't hurt their court argument really in the least.
Think of it this way. It's very easy to run ntdll through a disassembler. Yet this is prohibited by the EULA. It's very easy to copy your CD and give it to friends. This is prohibited by the EULA and copyright law. Saying it's very easy to run Vista under a hardware VM doesn't make that clause any less valid than it would be if it were hard to do. (How valid that is is subject to debate.)
So yes, hardware virtualization would make it so that it was only enforced by the terms of the EULA. But most of the EULA is only enforced through terms of the EULA.
(BTW, Intel too has a HW virtualization technology called x86 VT, which is in its second generation with the Core. So if they couldn't sell to AMD, then they can't sell to Intel customers, and their market is pretty small.)
AMD Pacifica and Intel x86 VT technology (which provide hardware VM) I think prevent Red Pill from working, and they actually DO virtualize the IDTR. It's an open question whether it's possible to make a hypervisor that can completely hide itself.
Did you even read the post you're replying to?
It is unclear if it refuses to run in a VM environment, or if the restriction is purely based on the EULA.
Pre-hardware VM technology (AMD Pacifica and Intel x86 VT), any VM that worked at a usable speed (read: VMWare) could be almost trivially detected by any OS that cared. It would be possible then to make it so that it performs this check, and it you're in a VM it essentially stops running.
Pacifica and VT change the game, because they allow (maybe?) complete virtualization from the hardware. Turns out that at least VMWare says that their software is several times faster for most tasks than even the second-generation VT in the Core, so time will tell how practical this is.
On the other hand still, there are good security reasons why chip manufacturers might want to put in an instruction explicitly to tell whether you're running in a hardware VM...
You read the summary and/or blog post right, but the author of said post is either (at best) misrepresenting the license or (at worst) lying.
AT THE MOST it might restrict your ability to make ISOs of the Vista media itself, and I don't think it even does that.
Can someone explain where the ISO comment came from? I can't find anything that would seem to prevent anything regarding ISOs. "ISO" doesn't appear in the document, nor does "CD." "Image" and "Media" don't appear in any related context.
Just because the CPU supports AMD Pacifica doesn't mean that it has to be in use. Besides, it's almost certainly just a legal, license restriction, not an enforced one within the kernel.
Perhaps you might say HOW you think it will kill Vista? 95% of the people who will be running it won't know what the heck virtualization is.
The Smoking Gun's Legal Document of the Year from a couple years ago is a brief filed in defense of someone accused of disorderly conduct and interfering with the staff, faculty, or students of an educational institutional for swearing at the principal did a Google search for the phrases "fuck," "fucking," "fucker," "mom," "baseball," "apple pies," "Chevrolet," "freedom of speech," "first amendment," "unconstitutional," and "sticks and stones may break my bones" and included the number of hits in the legal brief.
;-) (And a public defender no less.)
The whole document is absolutely hilarious; next time you start to get cynical towards lawyers take a look, and you'll see at least one good guy out there.
If you're installing another OS you'd be going around Windows's protections anyway, so without HW support it can't do anything about it. I'm solely talking about what happens WHILE you're your running Windows itself, because that's the case for 99% of users.
(There probably is a Linux system that has an installer you can run from Windows itself, but I can't name one off the top of my head and haven't ever seen it personally. This wouldn't be possible.)