Solution seems simple, if you're a big enough organization. Have your attorneys demand that Microsoft sign an NDA and an indemnification contract prior to buying any more software or updating anything.
They won't sign it, of course, but if enough customers do this, they'll change the offending terms of the license.
Pete Clark
Re:Making a slipstream W2K SP3 cd doesn't change e
on
More MS EULA Fun
·
· Score: 1
Whether it changes the text of the EULA or not is only sort of an interesting question - it doesn't change the code that you're installing. The provisions of the EULA don't matter until they're inplemented in code (such as the Windows Update feature) that performs the functions that the EULA grants MSFT permission to run.
If there's code in W2K SP3 or XP SP1 that implements this, and you install it, then you've given MSFT the keys to your machine, whether you agreed to the EULA or not. If you didn't agree to the EULA and MSFT installs stuff on your machine, then it becomes a question of who has better lawyers and more patience to deal with a lawsuit.
I think a more interesting question was whether this conflicts with HIPAA: organizations that are regulated by HIPAA might be caught on the horns of a dilemma... Run software with known security holes, which HIPAA frowns upon, or enter into a contract allowing a third party (MSFT) access to a machine with sensitive data on it, without being able to hold MSFT to the data protection and privacy terms that HIPAA demands.
Of course, when you're on the horns of a dilemma, you can always leave the situation through one door or another.
Slashdot Mirror
Solution seems simple, if you're a big enough organization. Have your attorneys demand that Microsoft sign an NDA and an indemnification contract prior to buying any more software or updating anything.
They won't sign it, of course, but if enough customers do this, they'll change the offending terms of the license.
Pete Clark
Whether it changes the text of the EULA or not is only sort of an interesting question - it doesn't change the code that you're installing. The provisions of the EULA don't matter until they're inplemented in code (such as the Windows Update feature) that performs the functions that the EULA grants MSFT permission to run.
If there's code in W2K SP3 or XP SP1 that implements this, and you install it, then you've given MSFT the keys to your machine, whether you agreed to the EULA or not. If you didn't agree to the EULA and MSFT installs stuff on your machine, then it becomes a question of who has better lawyers and more patience to deal with a lawsuit.
I think a more interesting question was whether this conflicts with HIPAA: organizations that are regulated by HIPAA might be caught on the horns of a dilemma... Run software with known security holes, which HIPAA frowns upon, or enter into a contract allowing a third party (MSFT) access to a machine with sensitive data on it, without being able to hold MSFT to the data protection and privacy terms that HIPAA demands.
Of course, when you're on the horns of a dilemma, you can always leave the situation through one door or another.
Pete