Submitted by “The next version of Windows is just around the corner, so the next time we discuss software licensing in my course, the EULA for Vista will be front and center. You can read the Microsoft Vista EULA yourself by going to the official Software License page from Microsoft page and searching for Vista. I know many of you have never bothered to read the EULA – who really wants to, after all? – but take a few minutes and get yourself a copy and read it. I’ll wait. Back? It’s bad, ain’t it? Real bad. I mean, previous EULAs weren’t anything great – but the Vista EULA is horrendous.”
Well, Microsoft is not entitled to decide under which terms I can make tests, unless they own the test suite. To the extent it isn’t the case they have no legal right to those terms, leaving the EULA pretty much void in Denmark (business as usual).
The only thing left for MS is the right to distribute Windows. But that’s the only thing they can deny me in Denmark, and since the law doesn’t grant me that right MS haven’t denied me anything anyway.
Too bad for those living in USA.
*EDIT: Typo in title – and possible other places as well*
Edited 2006-10-30 20:04
Are you absolutely sure about that? Microsoft doesn’t employ an army of lawyers for nothing. I am sure that if you violated the EULA and published benchmark or test information that Microsoft doesn’t want people to see, they would find a way to legally stop you from publishing that information.
And just because you live in Denmark doesn’t mean the EULA doesn’t apply.
Unless I am using test tools from Micrsoft they cannot prevent me from publishing the information.
Information on performance does not belong to Microsoft. It belongs to the finder of the information, that would be me.
And in Denmark _most_ of the EULA do not apply. I have every right, except the copyright which is basically limited to distribution rights and credits.
You might want to read this then:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms973265.aspx
“(1) you must disclose all the information necessary for replication of the tests, including complete and accurate details of your benchmark testing methodology, the test scripts/cases, tuning parameters applied, hardware and software platforms tested, the name and version number of any third-party testing tool used to conduct the testing, and complete source code for the benchmark suite/harness that is developed by or for you and used to test both the .NET Component and the competing implementation(s);”
The benchmark clause is nothing new in MS products, and is meant to ensure that you don’t spread bullshit performance numbers.
And I wouldn’t be so certain that you can ignore that clause in Denmark, or anywhere else for that matter. (Why you would ignore it is beyond me, as the requirements listed are very reasonable).
Feel free to provide legal proof that you can ignore the terms of the license.
In most European countries contract laws require a handwritten signature of both parties and the stipulations in the contract need to be balanced, i.e. not skewed heavily in favor of one party and detrimental to the other. As such, click-through EULA’s fall short of the legal requirements of most contract laws in European states and are mostly non-enforceable. Not all countries operate under US law.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and the above is layman’s opinion and not legal counsel.
I’m not a lawyer either but I believe licenses and contracts are different, from a legal point of view.
Well, license agreements and contracts are not so different.
Licenses and License Agreements are however very different.
In Italy there are contract clauses which are called “vessatorie” (vexing, unconscionable, unfair), because they impair the balance between the parties. In order to be legal they have to be fully comprehensible and readable and if the contract contains them they have to be signed one by one, otherwise they are null and void.
A license of use is a type of permission that is granted to the user. The terms of use are contained in a written document, i.e. a contract, which is basically an agreement between the parties. The EULA is by its own definition an agreement between the producer and the user on how the product is to be used.
I’m no lawyer either, but I’m afraid for Microsoft if the end-user does not sign the EULA sentence by sentence where necessary and on the dotted line at the bottom of it, only the State regulations are applicable here.
The license terms are completely unreasonable and unnecessary. If I spread bullshit performance numbers MS might be able to sue me for doing that (at least in Denmark – if they can proof I did it with evil intent).
Again – the requirements are extremely unreasonable.
Of course I can ignore part of the terms, since they don’t have other rights than those of distribution. It’s Denmark and not USA. They are not entitled to make such license terms. You will also notice that Microsoft EULA says that not all terms applies to all countries.
EDIT: Added “part of” in first line, third paragraph.
Edited 2006-10-30 21:28
1) Explain what you find so unreasonable with the benchmark clause.
2) If you do benchmarks and publish them, why wouldn’t you publish the information that the clause requires? Don’t you want anyone to be able to reproduce the numbers, and confirm them if they are true, or counter them if they are false?
3) Why do you continue to nag about “It’s Denmark and not USA”? You don’t know anything about where I live, or what laws I have to abide by.
4) From another post you talk about free speech rights. I hope you are aware that your free speech rights does not protect you if you spread lies, or if what you say can be deemed a crime (like hate speech).
#4
Correct, and I did mention that.
#3
Because USA have some extremely stupid rules, so stupid that USA have become world wide laughing stock because of those rules. Especially since USA is supposed to be the mothership of Freedom. And because so many in here applies USA rules to the rest of the world. I just want people to understand that whatever goes on in USA makes no difference out here.
#2
Personally I don’t see why people wouldn’t do that, but none the less the demands are unreasonable due to their existence.
#1
The problem is that an entity is trying to control the belongings of other entities. I don’t like that. And it severely limits the freedom of movement (not literally) – and I cope even worse with that.
“1) Explain what you find so unreasonable with the benchmark clause. ”
It prevents you from doing the benchmark in the way you think is most important. You *have* to follow MS guidelines, guidelines that can change at any time and to anything.
“3) Why do you continue to nag about “It’s Denmark and not USA”?”
His point is that EULA’s does not apply equally in all countries, if at all.
“4) From another post you talk about free speech rights. I hope you are aware that your free speech rights does not protect you if you spread lies, or if what you say can be deemed a crime (like hate speech)”
Naturally and amazingly there are already laws covering this that MS EULA’s cant exempt.
This is also not legal advice.
My understanding of the EU situation is as follows. A supplier cannot impose restrictions on how you use a product after you have bought it, as a condition of sale. The problem is not with Eulas but with the conditions. Some Eula conditions may be valid and binding, and would be valid and binding if you signed a form agreeing before you took possession of the product. Some will not be, and these will not be even if you signed the agreement in the same way.
MS probably is entitled to make it technically impossible to move a Vista installation more than once. They will not be able to prevent you from doing that by any kind of agreement on use post sale. Even if you sign an agreement to this effect before leaving the store, it will not be enforceable, because they have no right to tell you how to use it. Similarly, they cannot have a valid clause prohibiting installation on a VM. However, copyright probably lets them prohibit having two simultaneous installations one of which is a VM.
Similarly, they cannot prohibit you from testing/benchmarking and publishing the results in any way you choose. This also will be an attempt to restrict your use of it post-sale.
The analogy to bear in mind would be the auto industry. A car manufacturer cannot oblige you to buy parts from him. He can void your warranty if you use aftermarket parts. But he cannot, by a binding agreement imposed at sale, have an enforceable contract with you that stops you using a different brand of tyres, or installing your own CD player. This also shows the motivation for the legal situation. Post sale restrictions on use instantly become anti competitive.
The same point would apply if MS were to say in its Eula that Office cannot be installed under Wine. Or if Apple were to say that you cannot install OSX on a differently branded computer. Uh, wait a second on that one…..
The very interesting question, and one I don’t know the answer to is as follows. Suppose the above is right. You are then being presented with a Eula which is not enforceable. But you are being given the impression that it is. Is this a violation of consumer protection laws in the EU? It is surely not lawful to misrepresent the legal situation you are in with regard to product use? It would not, for example, be legal to say in the owners manual, when you bought a car, that you were contractually prohibited from installing third party tires. Because that would not be true regardless of conditions of purchase. The EU will not permit such conditions or contracts to that effect. So it surely must be unlawful to tell people their rights after purchase are different from what they really are?
If so, this applies to the MS Eula…and also to the Apple Eula.
is meant to ensure that you don’t spread bullshit performance numbers
In my not so humble opinion it is meant to control third-party benchmarking so to restrain the publication of unfavorable results, preventing researchers from thoroughly test and compare the .NET framework to prevent developers know about .NET shortcomings.
I can’t help but wonder what strange mental process pushes people to speak in favor of the bully instead of the weaker party. Low self-esteem? Need to live under some sort of “protection”? Beats me.
rehdon
In my not so humble opinion it is meant to control third-party benchmarking so to restrain the publication of unfavorable results, preventing researchers from thoroughly test and compare the .NET framework to prevent developers know about .NET shortcomings.
I understand. Requiring the researchers to also publish their test methods, etc. is restraining their ability to publish the benchmarks at all. (No need to mention that any researcher worth his/her name would publish the said test methods, etc. anyway)
That is what you are writing, and I’d like you to explain your reasoning.
At least read what the benchmark clause actually say before you comment on it.
“and is meant to ensure that you don’t spread bullshit performance numbers. ”
(Presuming you are in Denmark or any other sane country) It’s your right to publish “bullshit” performance numbers and it’s certainly not up to MS to decide what exactly qualifies as “bullshit”. I can go out and buy any consumer product, test it in any way I feel like and publish my results and conclusions. Vista is no exception from this.
MS of course has the right to attempt to sue me for slander under whatever jurisdiction that applies but they do however not have the right to prevent me from publishing my finds, whatever they may be, in the first place.
This reminds me of how a few years back the Oracle EULA basically stated that you couldn’t publish negative benchmarks. Pretty much the same thing.
Edited 2006-10-31 10:07
Certainly you appear to be quite fond of the “right” to spread lies and slander, just as your fuhrer was and your “liberterian” “free press” now does.
How dare MS require you not lie? Striek them down with the Iron Fist of EU fascism!
“just as your fuhrer was and your “liberterian” “free press” now does. ”
You realize, of course, that Hitler was german and not danish. Ignorance often leads to unintended hilarity.
“You realize, of course, that Hitler was german and not danish”
In fact he born in Austria.
Ignorance often leads to unintended hilarity.
It certainly does. Especially ignorance of the current current state of Danish politics and the original poster’s own affiliations.
Congratulations on perpetuating the disconnected-from-the-real-world Linux zealot stereotype. I see it’s well deserved.
And just because you live in Denmark doesn’t mean the EULA doesn’t apply.
If they have sane consumer protection laws, sure it does. Having to “sign” an agreement to use the product you already purchased is wrong. That agreement should have been signed at the time of the purchase. Most stores around here don’t refund software either so you can’t return it. EULAs are just bullcrap as far as I’m concerned.
I agree that EULA’s are crap, but with a company that has the legal muscle of Microsoft I wouldn’t want to test the waters to see if they are legal or not (I don’t have that much money).
Fear for nuisance suits doesn’t make a EULA legally enforceable.
Then again MS and their EULA’s are not my problem, because I reject them wholesale. They treat customers like dirt and thats an attitude I don’t want to reward.
I would really like to know what basis you have for stating this with no particular mentioning of specific paragraphs in Danish law that might protect you in this way….
It would be very interesting documenting this…
There is actually several laws (or more correct “lovafsnit og bekendtgørelser”) that protects me. But basically it all boils down to the copyright owner having no other rights than those of distribution.
I could actually even use Microsoft’s own benchmark tools and publish the results, since the information found is _MY_ property and not the property of Microsoft.
If it’s really important for you, I’ll recommend you spend some time in company with “Karnovs Lovsamling” (you can find it in the public library).
We have in Denmark laws protecting the weaker part in an agreement, and we also have laws giving minimum rights that cannot be surrendered.
Even if there was a written agreement (and no such exists) it would be most doubtful if MS could limit my right to Free Speech. And without a written agreement they have no such right.
Just as you were wrong about the tools used to benchmark a Microsoft product, I am reasonably sure you are wrong about your “freedom” and your “rights” in Denmark.
Microsoft’s lawyers are a pretty sharp group (the EULA clause about third party tools is a clear example of that), so I am sure if push came to shove in a legal dispute, you would more than likely lose. And I am also reasonably sure Microsoft’s copyright and trademark protection extend FAR outside the US.
So why don’t you enlighen us about your laws and your interpretation of them (since that is what I think we are seeing here is your interpretation). I took the time to dig up the appropriate section of the .NET EULA, you should be able to dig up the applicable portions of “”lovafsnit og bekendtgørelser”” for us in nothing flat if you are so intimately familiar with it!
I know I wouldn’t lose. I also know such a trial would never happen. I might be provocative from time to time, but never that much. I do however know people, who don’t have the same grasp of tricky elements in law, and therefore they tend to end up in some kind of trouble.
I wasn’t wrong about the tools used to benchmarks Microsoft products. Nobody have pointed to anything from the MS EULA that indicated I was wrong. The link you posted was merely a part of the MS EULA and unrelated to what I was dicussing.
Nothing in “Bekendtgørelse af lov om ophavsret – Lbk. nr. 725 af 6. juli 2005” gives the copyright holder any special rights apart from distribution rights. There are certain limitations to the distribution rights but that is irrelevant for us, since we are not copyright holders of Windows or .NET.
May be certain countries allow for companies to control my data, incl. my documents to several state secretaries, but Denmark isn’t one of those countries. There are in Denmark severe restrictions of the agreements two parts can make (actually way too many restrictions).
However, I’ll go as far as saying I could use Microsoft benchmark tools to benchmark .NET and release the information in spite of the EULA, and still not get in trouble, as long as the information is presented in a way that doesn’t violate the contents of “medieansvarsloven” (law on responsibility in the media).
As the editor of a magazine in Denmark I have to know this, in order to avoid getting imprisoned (I am the sole responsible person, so I’m the one to to sue). So far I haven’t been imprisoned (or sued) despite (or perhaps because of) having worked in this field for more than a decade.
Yes I did point to the appropriate section of the EULA, you simply chose to ignore it. And as I also figured you don’t know about your “rights” and “freedoms” enough to point applicable sections out to anyone specifying where your protections are and what they are limited to. More than likely your “rights” and “freedoms” are figments of your vivid imagination and your interpretation of your legal system is simply that, your interpretation.
So point out the applicable section(s), it shouldn’t be that hard to do. And if you are the editor of a magazine, you should have far better resources to find it faster. Unless you are wrong and this is how you are trying to get out of it.
I am not interested in your opinion, back it up with relevant links to the documents you earlier specified.
There is nothing in the EULA of importance. You pointed to a part of the EULA which allows for publication of benchmarks made with 3rd party tools, which was irrelevant for the discussion at that time.
It would be much easier if I knew what specific information you wanted.
In regard to interpretion: Law will always be a matter of interpretion – it’s merely a matter of interpreting it according to the law’s intent or interpreting against it.
So far, you do not seem to have any grasp at legal matters, where as I’ve had to spend many years on these issues (within Danish jurisdiction), and have one several cases against the authorities, so I’m pretty sure I can handle it.
The problem is that there is very little information in regard to law theory on this subject. For those who can read Danish http://www.jur.ku.dk/it-ret/Specialer/Bruhn-Petersen.PDF will be a good start as well as http://www.it-retten.dk/it-retten.htm
The latter one is not a law but a book on IT-laws, and is as such an interpretion. Chapter 1, 9 and 10 do indicate that the right to freely entering agreements are limited. But it’s not a law – it’s an interpretion of laws, court rulings, theoris and practices so far (mostly) in Denmark.
I’ll be more than happy to dig down in “Karnovs Lovsamling” (Karnovs Collection of Laws) in order to gather requested material – but only if you can ask some very precise questions. Until then, I’ll stick with the common interpretion among lawyers in Denmark.
Well, couldn’t edit.
You might want to take a look at §4 in “Bekendtgørelse af lov om ophavsret – Lbk. nr. 725 af 6. juli 2005” – and compare it with views presented at it-retten.dk – primarily in chp. 9 and 10.
As if anyone cares about your backwards, fascist state. Your whole thread is off-topic.
It’s on topic.
And you are way out of line. This is too much.
I don’t know where you come from, but as an Italian I can assure you: Denmark is one of the most advanced countries in the world. It has been for a long time.
an Italian I can assure you: Denmark is one of the most advanced countries in the world. It has been for a long time.
I’m not at all surprised to see Italians supporting a fascist state on a genocidal rampage. How’s the child molesting going, by the way? All nicely covered up?
In the past 10 months I have ran benchmark tests that would be of interest to Sun, Hewlett Packard, RedHat and MySQL. Do you think for a second I would publish those benchmarks without having the vendor(s) examine them first? Of course they would get a look at them before publication, it is called good faith where I come from. That way if there is a problem with the results or how they were derived, the vendor(s) and I could come to an understanding that (hopefully) leaves the results intact unless there was a major problem with the results (indicating a serious problem with the hardware/software) or a problem with how I counducted the test (methodology, bias, etc.).
You seem to think that you are above this, that the laws of Denmark will protect you no matter what. Your interpretation of Danish law is optimistic to say the least and other posters (Soulbender) I think have it right that if you publish benchmarks critical of a product, regardless of what that product is that you will probably face some legal action for your publication of those results.
Just because you are an editor for a magazine does not mean you are a lawyer, just as much as my 23 years as a professional photographer and 5 years as a system administrator means I have no more an ability to interpret law as you do. That is what lawyers are for and if in doubt I would consult one, but that is just me.
If you believe that the laws of The Netherlands will protect you, go ahead and run some benchmark test and attempt to publish results that violate Microsoft’s EULA (if you can) and see if your “rights” and “freedoms” protect you from legal action. I somehow think the laws you speak of will not protect you at all despite your interpretation of them.
“Do you think for a second I would publish those benchmarks without having the vendor(s) examine them first? Of course they would get a look at them before publication, it is called good faith where I come from.”
“You seem to think that you are above this, that the laws of Denmark will protect you no matter what.”
Everyone’s “above” this since this isn’t in any actual law, it’s just the polite thing to do. Being impolite is not illegal and neither should it be.
What if your tests revealed a critical flaw? With the way the MS EULA (but they are not the only offender) is worded they could just say “hey, it doesn’t happen when you use our tests so you can’t tell anyone about this and we don’t want to fix it”.
“Your interpretation of Danish law is optimistic to say the least and other posters (Soulbender) I think have it right that if you publish benchmarks critical of a product, regardless of what that product is that you will probably face some legal action for your publication of those results.”
That’s not what I said. I said the copyright holder (MS in this case) has the right to try to sue you for slander or bring other legal actions against you. Now, wether they actually have a case or not is an entirely different matter that depends on the comsumer laws in the country at hand. In Sweden and Denmark they wouldn’t have a case unless you outright lied but using your own test methods, approved by the vendor or not, is not lying. It’s not illegal to be critical of a product.
What MS is trying to do, and what is so bad about this, is that they are trying to preempt the law and *prevent* you from publishing any results that they don’t approve of. This way they don’t have to prove you slandered them since you “can’t” publish anything.
However, this is in reality only a scare tactic, a not uncommon practice by lawyers.
“I somehow think the laws you speak of will not protect you at all despite your interpretation of them.”
Actually they will. Consumer laws in Denmark (and Sweden) are strict and in favor of the consumer, something many an american company has bitterly realized.
Edited 2006-10-31 14:04
My bad for quoting you out of context, that was not my intent.
In the last paragraph I mentioned The Netherlands instead of Denmark, my bad. I was thinking of something else at the time.
(I’ve noticed “The Netherlands” should read “Denmark”.)
I don’t know why you would have them examine the benchmarks first. I have according to Danish law no such obligation. However, if I use the benchmark to critisize a company extensively they _are_ entitled to have a chance to make a reply before I publish the contents. That’s a part of “Medieansvarsloven” and that’s why I mentioned that law. Whether or not we can reach an agreement on the understanding of the results are irrelevant according to Danish law, which I know a lot better than you do.
Apparently you think US laws can be automatically applied to Denmark. This is however not the case.
One cannot sue me for publishing critical benchmarks in Denmark. What you can do is to complain to “Pressenævnet” and I might have to post a notice in the next issue, saying that “Pressenævnet” came with one or another ruling. But apart from (in worst case) a few thousand danish crowns, it won’t have any consequences (it’s what we call a “nose”). I am not afraid of publishing such benchmarks, but I would do it accordingly to the “Medieansvarslov”.
You also misrepresented statements from Soulbender, but he has taken care of that himself. And I agree with him, and have written similar statements in my earlier replies to you.
I am not afraid of posting benchmarks. I don’t have to contact the company who owns the product I’ve benchmarked. I only have to do so if I critisize them extensively.
MS might take legal action but they would gain absolutely nothing but negative PR.
Microsoft’s EULA is mostly void according to “Loven om ophavsret”. So of course I can publish benchmarks in spite of the EULA. I just cannot critisize MS extensively without giving them a “reasonable chance of replying”.
I have taken care of my misquoting Soulbender. I just don’t think that if publish benchmarks critical of a Microsoft product that is in violation of their EULA, that you are going to walk, regardless of what country you are in.
If Microsoft takes the “threat” seriously enough I am sure they can a person’s life absolutely miserable. I am not trying to interpret law at all, despite your claim to the contrary. I just believe in being prepared in case there is a problem (Michael Lynn formerly of ISS comes to mind). What I have learned is that “business is business” and the law (not limited to the US) doesn’t always work the way you expect it to.
We are going to have to agree to disagree.
I’ll take it bottom up.
We are going to have to agree to disagree.
I can easily accept that
– it’s a healthy approach btw.
I am not afraid of MS sueing me, because they have no case. The laws in Denmark are quite protective on this part. All I have to remember, is to contact MS before I publish the article in a newspaper (if I am the editor).
Apart from that they can do me nothing. They might try, but they’d lose it immediately. Denmark is quite different here, since the EULA is trying to remove rights I cannot surrender according to Danish law.
However, I can agree with you on being cautious. There is nothing wrong in being cautious. But I don’t have to be _that_ cautious.
Of course I can walk around in Denmark if I publish critical benchmarks of .NET. It is none of MS business to decide that. What they can do is controlling the distribution of their software and (to some level) the extent of allowed usage of software.
Most of the MS EULA is void in Denmark, and MS in Denmark knows that.
Nor am I afraid about infringing software patents because we don’t have software patents in Denmark (algorithms can be patented, and according to court rulings and law software is merely algorithms).
As dylanmrjones correctly is saying MS wouldn’t have any case, and that goes for all the Nordic countries (Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway).
Here (I’m a Finn) we, as has been said, have strong consumer-protecting laws where the company is always at false when such thing are fought about. This because the consumer is seen as the weak part that doesn’t have any possibility but accept the the “contract” and as the weaker part is to be protected by the law. The law is also extra protective when it is about a company that has almost a monopoly status.
You (americans) have a lot to learn about Nordic consumer protection laws.
For example there is an ongoing case in Norway brought on by the Consumer Council of Norway against iTunes.no for using unfair contract terms. What that is about is they where trying to use the application of English law, the restriction of competition through both terms and DRM, the ability for iTunes to unilaterally change the terms and conditions and geographical discrimination. It will be intresting to see what happens, but it will probably take until sometime next year. (some info I could find about it: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/27/norway_itunes_complaint/ )
There is similar consumer protection legislation in the UK. It all comes from EC Directives in the end, which the member states are obliged to enact. How exactly they enact differs from state to state, but they have to enact something which meets the Directive, so all consumer protection stuff in the EU is very similar.
“If Microsoft takes the “threat” seriously enough I am sure they can a person’s life absolutely miserable.”
I am pretty sure that the country where you live makes a hell of a difference.
Surely it makes here in Italy a huge difference, but most likely also in othere European countries where I lived: UK, Netherlands, Germany (not sure about the latter).
“In the past 10 months I have ran benchmark tests that would be of interest to Sun, Hewlett Packard, RedHat and MySQL. Do you think for a second I would publish those benchmarks without having the vendor(s) examine them first? . . . ”
There is no reasonable requirement that vendors examine my results before I publish them. There is no requirement that I spell out how the test was conducted, although this improves the worth of MY benchmarks. If I am posting on a forum about my personal experiences with a piece of software I am not going to get the approval of MS to do so.
MS is trying to tell me how I have to do thing with my computer and how to report my experiences with my computer. They may have some good suggestions on how to conduct a benchmark but to try to dictate how I do things is way over the top. I also would not trust that MS’s setup would represent real world conditions.
I have the right to decide how I conduct my benchmarks and how I will report them. I can decide how well or how poorly I do that job. There is this thing called freedom of speech in America and as long as I don’t slander/liable MS they have no control over my speech. I can run benchmarks that are critical of MS operating system without going to them first or meeting there test setup requirements, i.e., real world conditions such as a system that has been in use for three year with software that has been installed and uninstalled . . . I can tell you that this system runs slower than a fresh installation of XP with no other software installed.
MS’s Vista EULA requirements are outrageous on many levels.
Edited 2006-10-31 16:50
The document you are referring to, ‘Bekendtgørelse af lov om ophavsret – Lbk. nr. 725 af 6. juli 2005’, has a separate paragraph, §36 concerning the end user’s rights in regards to ‘examining’ the internals of a piece of software.
The 3rd passage of this particular paragraph describes the end user’s rights to:
‘overlook, examine or test the software to determine which ideas and principles form the basis for the single elements of the software if this is done in such fashion concerning installation, showing on a monitor, execution, archiving or the likes of the software as the individual is allowed to perform’
This makes me assume that Microsoft are indeed allowed to determine to what extend and under which circumstances you are allowed to test their software, e.g. through benchmarking….
But since I might just be one of those ‘without the same grasp of the laws’ as you — please enlighten me further if necessary….
I’ll look at it right away, but I’ll might have to put on some lawyers in order to get an accurate interpretion.
They have been right so far, and I’ll hope it’ll stay that way (or I’ll end in prison one of these days).
No lawyers needed.
§ 36 makes it clear that the end user (you and me) have a right protected by law to run the test necessary to figure out which ideas and principles lie behind the elements in the software, if these tests happens to be run on the computer in relation to reading data, printing data, representing data on on the monitor, or otherwise storing data.
It also makes it clear that this right cannot be lost through end user license agreements (EULA).
So thank you for proving me right
What I wrote was a detailed translation of what it actually says…
What you are giving me is an interpreted version…
Once again you fail to give detailed evidence of your assumptions. You seem to want to direct our focus somewhere in particular but do so without pointing directly to the evidence.
I would just like to know which paragraph to read in order for you to prove yourself right on this matter….
BTW,
§36 clearly states that:
‘The individual allowed to rightfully use a piece of software is allowed to:
2: (…)
3: overlook, examine or test the software to determine which ideas and principles form the basis for the single elements of the software if this is done in such fashion concerning installation, showing on a monitor, execution, archiving or the likes of the software as the individual is allowed to perform’
To me this clearly states that the individual allowed to run a piece of software on basis of agreement on the terms of an EULA has to follow this agreement in order not to violate the copyright law in mention.
As I have replied elsewhere I fail to see how you can come to that interpretion.
As long as I only perform legal operations (creating classes, modifying classes, creating instances of objects etc.) I can test it anyway I want to.
_I_ can overlook, _I_ can examine, and _I_ can test anything I want to, in relation to legal operations.
The EULA is void in that regard, due to §36, part 3. Your reference is btw. §36, part 1.2 and 1.3
Of course you are not allowed to perform tests in relation to operations, you aren’t allowed to perform. So you cannot legally test warez, for an instance. Nor can you test .NEt if you are using .NET to do things disallowed by the EULA – with exception of rights provided by law if these rights cannot be surrendered. Like the right to perform tests.
You left out the most important element, §36 part 3.
Actually it wasn’t.
You have mistranslated it and misinterpreted it as well.
§36, stk.1.1 clearly says: “the one with the right to use the software (that would be the licensee – you and me, my remark) have the right to make such modifications necessary to use the software as it was intended, incl. fixing errors in the software.
stk.1.2 clearly says: “the one with the right to use the software can make a backup copy if this is necessary to protect it”
and
stk 1.3 clearly says “the one with the right to use the software (that is the licensee, my remark) have the right to overlook, examine or test the software to determine which ideas and principles form the basis for the single elements of the software if this is done in such fashion concerning installation, showing on a monitor, execution, archiving or the likes of the software as the individual is allowed to perform. (That would be testing printing routines in Office Word or other such operations, my remark)
stk.2 [omitted – it’s about use and modification of databases]
stk.3 clearly states, that the provisions given in stk.1 and stk.2 cannot be surrendered through an agreement.
My remark: Even a written agreement is void here. I can make any kind of test I want to, as long as I’m doing it in relation to a legal operation on the software. For an instance, this could be opening XML files utilizing .NET.
Microsoft cannot make rules for my testing except granting further rights to me. They are not allowed to tell me, I cannot overview, examine or test the way the software works, when this happens in relation to operations I’m allowed to perform.
What Microsoft is doing is disallowing me to perform such tests, in direct violation of §36 stk.3.
Very nice. Very clear, very convincing. Thanks.
“so I am sure if push came to shove in a legal dispute, you would more than likely lose.”
And you come to this conclusion based on your extensive knowledge of danish law and the danish legal system, right?
Consumer rights are very protected in Scandinavian countries and since our legal systems is (thankfully) nothing like the U.S legal system frivolous lawsuits aren’t rampant. That is, you cant sue people left and right without reasonable cause and corporations most certainly cant legally prevent consumers from stating their opinion on a product (and a benchmark is an opinion).
Edited 2006-10-31 03:01
“I would really like to know what basis you have for stating this with no particular mentioning of specific paragraphs in Danish law that might protect you in this way…. ”
Freedom of speech, perhaps? The laws about protecting the consumer and their rights?
I’m pretty sure you danes have a clauses about that in your laws. EULA’s can not exempt your basic rights, no matter how much the corporate laywerdrones would want you to believe that.
This is about as absurd as if any company in any other business would state that “you may not test this product and publish your results if they are damaging”.
The only industry that this bullshit floats in is I.T.
I’ll contribute to the debate fun! Unlike in the USA, corporations don’t have radical control over laws elsewhere. In some places, software is just a shiny disk with copyright! As long as you don’t violate copyright by using more than 1 copy, or by distributing, the law says that’s the only “limitations” you as the customer have. Some saner countries don’t allow a company with a state-granted monopoly over a copyright to attach additional restrictions to how the customer may use the product, or what they may say about it, or who they can say it to… because the company already has a MONOPOLY, you cannot make a fair, balanced contract when one side is given unfair advantage by the state!
Strange as it sounds a good portion of Europe has similar laws. That’s why the French were trying to “break” iTunes/iPod combination because Apple is selling copyrighted songs, why should they get to also tie them to their player… That’s why DVD Jon was found non-guilty of breaking CSS encryption on DVDs, the state already protects DVD makers with copyright and DVD players with patents, they don’t have the right to impose additional “restrictions” when you’ve already paid money for the disc and the player and can’t legally NOT buy from the state granted monopoly.
In short, Danish politicans aren’t corperate bitches like the US politicans are!
Eh, not that bad actually. It should be worse and really entangling so that people finally wake to the alternatives.
>>”Beware the wrath of a patient user base.” Security pros have already given Microsoft a deserved black eye over the never-ending string of gaffes and vulnerabilities streaming out of the company. It seems now as though another black eyes and a bloody nose may be coming, along with a final wave goodbye. There comes a point at which corporate hubris causes a fall, and we may be seeing the beginning of that collapse. If so, Microsoft will have no one but itself to blame.<<
Haven’t you considered Linux or Mac OS X yet?
Well, then it is really time to do so.
Examples: Debian Etch should be released in December, 3 DVDs worth of goodies.
Or consider an iMac: the 17 inches ones are very good value for money, especially considering that they come with a great OS which never asks for a serial, activation…
Else Mac Pros are also very good value for such high end machines.
Haven’t you considered Linux or Mac OS X yet?
I really doubt that any normal person is going to switch platforms just because this EULA. I know, it’s ugly, but there are many, many things to consider while making a platform switch besides licencing. And most people will look for the OS that better suits their practical needs, not their moral philosophies.
And please, it’s incredibly annoying to see this kind of comments. Trying to push people to something you think is better hardly works.
Disclaimer: GNU/Linux user here, no MS fanboy, keep your flames.
Edit: Fixed some typos
Edited 2006-10-30 20:26
Trying to push people to something you think is better hardly works.
True. That’s why I decided to let people suffer their own choices freely.
Any “normal” computer user will probably skip right over the EULA, just like you said. What this is more likely to do than anything else is to encourage Linux/UNIX users who have Windows boxes for gaming or testing to look at products like Transgaming’s Cedega or CodeWeaver’s Crossover Linux to replace their need for Windows.
…at least it is for me.
“I really doubt that any normal person is going to switch platforms just because this EULA.”
The “bad” EULA is on top of tons of other factors: (high) cost of the license, high hardware requirements, compatibility issues, bloated code, plenty of bugs at least until SP1, and last but not least security. I don’t have any good reason to believe that security in Vista will be a lot better than in previous versions of Windows.
I’d take this with a grain of salt. The Register has been known to post sensationalist stories.
Given the author’s credits, I wouldn’t expect him to say anything different about Vista considering his background with linux:
Scott Granneman teaches at Washington University in St. Louis, consults for WebSanity, and writes for SecurityFocus and Linux Magazine. His latest book, Hacking Knoppix, is in stores now.
Just because the guy’s a Linux fan doesn’t mean he’s not telling the truth about the Vista EULA. The EULA is available for anyone to read and it’s pretty draconian from where I stand. I’ve already looked at several stories concerning the new, more restrictive EULA and unfortunately, most of the “bad news” is true (albeit up for some interpretation – none of these guys is a lawyer so far as I know.) The fact that this guy’s a Linux guy actually give him MORE credibility in my book as it means he has the brains and common sense to seek alternatives to the Borg (i.e., Microsoft.)
Let’s not start a “he said, she said” war – less we point out that MS fanboys can’t talk about any other OS because they are vendor locked.
We can read the document. It’s explicit with regard to DRM, transfer, and virtualization limitations.
The new Vista ELDLA (End Licensed Device License Agreement) seems to be between my computer and Microsoft, and Microsoft has bypassed me, their customer.
I’d keep your computer locked up, then, and not allow it unauthorised trips to PCWorld or CompUSA. 😉
I’d take this with a grain of salt. The Register has been known to post sensationalist stories.
Given the author’s credits, I wouldn’t expect him to say anything different about Vista considering his background with linux
Scott Granneman is one of the most respected security professionals currently and has been writing monthly articles on SecurityFocus for years so he is as credible as it can get. Besides, the tone of this article is accurate indeed. This time the Vista EULA is going way too far.
I’d take this with a grain of salt. The Register has been known to post sensationalist stories.
I completely agree; for example:
“As I read this, you go to the store and buy a copy of Vista, which you install on a PC you had in your office. A year later, another PC becomes available that’s a bit more up to date, so you decide to transfer your Vista license to that machine.”
Why would you transfer your Windows Vista licence to that machine considering that the machine will already be loaded with a copy of Windows Vista?
I’ve had a read over the rest of the licence and it seems pretty regular; they’re making sure that the limited version you purchase can only do the things that you’ve paid for – for obvious reasons. The benchmark is pretty standard, almost all companies do this.
So basically they outline, IIRC, three sections, with none of them actually requiring the ridicule which they spent in that particular article – its nothing more than an anti-Microsoft backlash, just like there was with Windows XP, there is with Windows Vista.
If closet Linux fanboys like the article writer want people to use their operating system of choice, how about them addressing the deficiences of their operating system, then they might actually find that consumers will then voluntarily choose to migrate to Linux rather than sticking with Windows.
The simple fact is, it is alot easier to sit in front of a computer abusing Microsoft to buggering rather than actually knuckling down and correcting these issues which hold back general mainstream adoption of Linux on the desktop by Joe and Jane Doe.
Why would you transfer your Windows Vista licence to that machine considering that the machine will already be loaded with a copy of Windows Vista?
Not always true. For example I can go to a local supplier, have them make up a machine to my specs – at this point they will ask about OS’s – if I have a valid existing licence they will put the OS in without charge, activating it with my licence number, if this is legit. This makes life easier for corporate/business purchasers.
EDIT: borked the tags, sorted.
Edited 2006-10-31 16:30
But businesses and corporations have a difference licencing terms, so the above issue wouldn’t actually occur for most people.
Althought I don’t agree with idea of activation, on the other hand, however, I don’t blame Microsoft for using it, because currently, as far as I see, I don’t see alternative to atleast slowing down/retarding the use of casually pirated software.
Also, the new corporate activation seems like a very big headache; if it were just to stay with end users, no problems, but when it comes to business, like I said on a forum, what about a person who is travelling through a developed country with poor infrastructure and unable to reactivate?
How about another perspective:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=158
Or another:
http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2006/10/24/0456/5625
It isn’t just one writer who sees issues with the new licensing terms…
Surely there must be some software companies out there that want to test their product on a bunch of different versions of Windows. Up till now I’m sure they’ve been using VMWare to do that.
What are they meant to do now? Have one machine with VMWare doing eighteen other Windows versions, and a dedicated box for Vista Home Basic? What about Home Premium? Or multiple languages?
I can’t help but think it would be nice for some restrictions to be placed on what rights these licenses can take away – after all, Microsoft/the retailers hardly play fair on their side of it (getting your legally entitled refund is like extracting teeth from an elephant).
It would be nice to think that users might balk at some restrictions in this license. However, people said that about XP’s product activation too, but it doesn’t seem to have seriously hurt it’s uptake. That’s probably helped by the fact that users don’t actually _read_ these licenses – and since most people will need to upgrade their computer to run Vista, they’ll get it preinstalled. How convenient…
Surely there must be some software companies out there that want to test their product on a bunch of different versions of Windows. Up till now I’m sure they’ve been using VMWare to do that.
What are they meant to do now? Have one machine with VMWare doing eighteen other Windows versions, and a dedicated box for Vista Home Basic? What about Home Premium? Or multiple languages?
The Register’s story has already been shown to be bogus. Vista Home (Basic or Premium) may be run in a virtual machine. However, it may not be run in a virtual machine and on actual hardware simultaneously.
The Register’s story has already been shown to be bogus. Vista Home (Basic or Premium) may be run in a virtual machine. However, it may not be run in a virtual machine and on actual hardware simultaneously.
How exactly has it been shown to be bogus? I found the same text that they did in two minutes on microsoft.com:
“4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.”
It doesn’t say that you can’t do it simultaneously, it says that you cannot do it at all. I suppose if you squinted you could just about suggest that if the “licensed device” was a virtual one you’d be okay, but I wouldn’t want to take that to court against Microsoft.
“4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.”
So what they are saying is that you may not use the same copy as host and guest, as your license doesn’t give you the right to do that.
I have yet to see a lawyer come out and support your view of the license, although I haven’t seen one against it either. The clause you have quoted is correct, but look elsewhere to find the definition of a “licensed device.” It says you must install the OS to a licensed device, and if a virtual machine can’t count (it is unclear to me whether it would or not) then you wouldn’t also be able to install it in a vm.
>”software installed on the licensed device”
So what they are saying is that you may not use the same copy as host and guest, as your license doesn’t give you the right to do that.
No matter what kind of virtual machine you have used, if it makes virtual (or not-so-virtual) partition on your hard drive, Vista is installed on a “licensed device”.
So even if it’s only a guest os, installation still sits on hard drive of “licensed device”. Unfortunately you can’t use it in virtual machine because:
>You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.
—
RBEU #1000000000 – Registered Bad English User
don’t shoot IANAL
Edited 2006-10-30 22:06
No matter what kind of virtual machine you have used, if it makes virtual (or not-so-virtual) partition on your hard drive, Vista is installed on a “licensed device”.
So even if it’s only a guest os, installation still sits on hard drive of “licensed device”. Unfortunately you can’t use it in virtual machine because:
>You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.
You can’t use the same licensed copy in the VM if it is also running on the physical machine (unless you are using Vista Ultimate). You can acquire a seperate license for the virtual instance.
“This does not limit your use of the software in a virtual environment. It is intended to limit your use of the same license for multiple installations. For instance, if you buy a new desktop with a copy of windows installed, you can’t take that same license of Windows and install it in a virtual machine. This would be similar to not allowing you to install the same license on another machine. Ultimate edition opens up licensing and allows you to use the same license inside a virtual machine, even though the license is already installed on the physical machine.”
http://blogs.technet.com/windowsserver/archive/2006/10/17/Virtual-H…
It is stated in the document that it has to be a hardware device elsewhere.
Surely there must be some software companies out there that want to test their product on a bunch of different versions of Windows. Up till now I’m sure they’ve been using VMWare to do that.
What are they meant to do now? Have one machine with VMWare doing eighteen other Windows versions, and a dedicated box for Vista Home Basic? What about Home Premium? Or multiple languages?
Even if the claims were true, do you honestly think that these companies would buy OEM or Retail versions for testing purposes?
No. They would most likely have Technet and/or MSDN subscriptions to cover these tests, and those usage licenses may not be the same as what you get from OEM/Retail.
And WHO CARES? if my employer ever decides to use Vista…they will pay for it. As for me, I have switched completelly to MacOS X and Linux more or less two years ago…and I suggest you do the same
So if anyone needs stuff done, you might avoid it by going here or putting your server here
Ofcourse it’s not a solution.
EULA is basicly an illegal thing legalized, as is usual in good ol’ CA (corporate america).
It’s like you buy a package and AFTER you agree to some things and open it a new agreement pops up and doesn’t even asks you if you agree.
The day I started to feel comfortable with GNU/Linux was the day this stuff stopped worrying me.
MS does believe that they can do whatever they want to their userbase, they have and are proving that on a daily basis.
When the draconian hell of just using the OS gets to be too much people will be forced to find alternatives instead of just ‘dealing with it’ and the faster the better!
The exodus is coming, MS just can’t see it yet.
Here is a direct link to the EULA :
http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/Windows%20Vist…
Vista = WGA, OGA, EULA, wonder whats next?
I just ran into MGA as well trying to install WMP 11 with Wine.
Looks as if all new MS programs will do a “Genuine Advantage” check before a install.
http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/downloads/PrivacyInfo.aspx?display…
Ive been reading about Vista’s new SPP “Software Protection Platform” changes as well.
So were up to :
Vista = WGA, OGA, MGA, SPP, and the UELA …. it’s looking nice isn’t it.
“Well, here’s what I’ve learned: socialism is fair but doesn’t really work, while capitalism isn’t fair but does work mostly.”
Capitalism: Economic rule of the rich,by the rich, for the rich.
I Don’t like the idea spending $300-400 for software that is too restrictive.
Edited 2006-10-30 20:48
… around the release of any MS OS. In the end, it usually doesn’t matter that much.
… around the release of any MS OS. In the end, it usually doesn’t matter that much.
You’re right. I remember when XP came out, and everybody was crying about the dreaded product activation. At that time, it seemed that everybody and their grandma wanted to completely switch out their hardware every 3 weeks. It seems like every time a new Windows OS come out, the ABM’ers are waving their anti-Microsoft banners, screaming that this release is going to be so horrible, we should have no choice but to switch platforms.
And now that you can’t run the home versions of Vista in a virtual machine (or can you?), people are up in arms once again. Whether the EULA goes too far or not, I’m willing to bet that 98% of the people who are bitching and whining about this probably had no desire to run Vista in the first place, much less run it in a VM.
It has been asked, how much longer are people going to put up with this? I suppose as long as it doesn’t inconvenience us. I personally have no desire to run Vista in a VM, nor did I ever plan to transfer the license to more than one machine. I’m not really one to bitch things like this that don’t affect me personally. If it does affect you then fine. But as stated above, I bet most of the people who are screaming would not be affected by this one way or the other.
Now, if the next version of Windows came up with something that said I couldn’t use the OS after 5pm (or something equally as dumb), then yeah … I might have a problem with it.
Edited 2006-10-30 21:13
>I’m willing to bet that 98% of the people who are whining about this probably had no desire to run Vista in the first place, much less run it in a VM.
True. But then again, I never had a desire to use Windows XP either, but here I am, typing away on it, because I bought a new computer that came with it preinstalled. And Linux doesn’t support all of my hardware. So I just live with it.
Well there’s part of the problem.
I think FOSS advocates, besides hoping and working toward Free Software’s growth and maturity, hope that MS does indeed get painfully and stupidly restrictive.
Make it so the average user simply cannot or will not “just live with it”.
The problem is, how far will people let themselves be pushed? Farther than anyone cares to see if there aren’t viable alternatives that Joe and Jane Sixpack can use…
//The problem is, how far will people let themselves be pushed? Farther than anyone cares to see if there aren’t viable alternatives that Joe and Jane Sixpack can use…//
The problem is rather that while there are indeed a number of viable alternatives that Joe and Jane Sixpack can easily use, Joe and Jane Sixpack don’t know about those alternatives, and/or Joe and Jane Sixpack are continually told that alternatives are hard to use (when they are not), and/or Joe and Jane Sixpack are told that the alternatives aren’t ready for use (when they are).
The problem is also that Joe and Jane Sixpack are willing to let themselves be pushed an amazing distance before they even start to question those who are either failing to tell them anything at all about viable alternatives, or telling them erroneous things about said alternatives.
People aren’t morons. Linux is free and it still isn’t catching on like wildfire. Think about that carefully.
You’d have to be a really conspiratorial person to believe that Microsoft has the market so rigged up that no one hears about this free alternative and tries to sell it to the masses, where its ease of use and superiority would easily trump Windows.
Sure, maybe the big three comp. manufacturers won’t do it, but Dell was pretty much a no-name whitebox brand before they became big. I see a great business proposition for you: make a Linux-based version of Dell. Start small.. maybe just in your town. If your solution is as superior as you claim, you’ll be raking in the big bucks in no time.
Edited 2006-10-31 05:41
//Linux is free and it still isn’t catching on like wildfire. Think about that carefully.
You’d have to be a really conspiratorial person to believe that Microsoft has the market so rigged up that no one hears about this free alternative and tries to sell it to the masses, where its ease of use and superiority would easily trump Windows.
Sure, maybe the big three comp. manufacturers won’t do it, but Dell was pretty much a no-name whitebox brand before they became big. I see a great business proposition for you: make a Linux-based version of Dell. Start small.. maybe just in your town. If your solution is as superior as you claim, you’ll be raking in the big bucks in now time.//
Your own post is a perfect illustration of why your own post is wrong.
No matter how many times you are told that there is a cheaper and better alternative out there, and one that doesn’t rob you of your rights to boot, you just won’t believe it.
You go even further. You post messages to try and convince yourself and anyone else who will listen that it can’t be true.
Oh well, as the classic saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.
//People aren’t morons.//
From the evidence readily to hand there isn’t much really to support that claim.
It has been asked, how much longer are people going to put up with this? I suppose as long as it doesn’t inconvenience us. I personally have no desire to run Vista in a VM, nor did I ever plan to transfer the license to more than one machine.
Oh, you know something: Microsoft thinks you are transferring Vista to another machine if you just so much as replace the motherboard (atleast I read that a good while ago here in OSnews and got shocked by that already then), and as such, you’re required to buy a new license. Fun, ain’t it? I just wonder how it’ll work out eventually in cases like someone’s mobo has broken down and needs to be replaced and they take it somewhere for repair. Also people who often upgrade their computers might have a problem..
Oh, you know something: Microsoft thinks you are transferring Vista to another machine if you just so much as replace the motherboard (atleast I read that a good while ago here in OSnews and got shocked by that already then), and as such, you’re required to buy a new license. Fun, ain’t it? I just wonder how it’ll work out eventually in cases like someone’s mobo has broken down and needs to be replaced and they take it somewhere for repair. Also people who often upgrade their computers might have a problem.
That same issue happened to me when I replaced my motherboard. I was instructed to call the 1-800 number during reactivation. I did. I wasn’t required to buy a new license. I told MS what I was doing, and they gave me an activation key. It took me 10 minutes.
I was surprised. I thought that MS was going to tell me to buy a new copy of the OS. They told me that activation isn’t meant to prevent the scenario that you describe. I had purchased a retail shrinkwrap Windows XP SP2 package. The same does not hold true of OEM versions that are preinstalled on machines from, for example, Dell or Gateway. Those are licensed with specific hardware. I don’t think that many people understand the distiinction.
That same issue happened to me when I replaced my motherboard. I was instructed to call the 1-800 number during reactivation. I did. I wasn’t required to buy a new license. I told MS what I was doing, and they gave me an activation key. It took me 10 minutes.
I’ve seen that happen to other people too, but I have this feeling that they actually mean you gotta pay again for Vista to run on a new motherboard, or if you change more than 3 components inside the computer. Though, I may be wrong about this. But even with that reactivation being free, I’d still find it quite a nuisance.
> Microsoft thinks you are transferring Vista to another machine if you just so much as replace the motherboard (atleast I read that a good while ago here in OSnews and got shocked by that already then),
You are wrong about this. First of all this was false on its face. It was never just the motherboard but Mobo + CPU or hard drive. Secondly, the one time thing was also wrong. http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/10/26/Microsoft_clarifies_Vista_a… (Gee, somehow that story didn’t make it to OSnews. Less sensational followups rarely do.)
Notably the article mentioned here goes off on Thurrott as just a shill but in fact most of what Thurrott said about the enthusiast angle being pretty much like XP, at least in this regard, was accurate.
So What if DELL Replace my MOBO under Warranty? Do I have to stump up to MS for a new Vista License?
It is a pretty solid bet the the Dell Warranty will cover the H/W and even the Labour costs but A new Vista License? Get real.
Please not that I use Dell here as an example. I am pretty sure the same would apply to many other PC Makers and I don’t want to single out Dell.
If MS start charging for new Licenses in these cases then I will regard this as them shooting themselves in the foot with both barrels. I am not a lawyer but I can imaging a number of Law Suits heading MS way pretty quick.
no, because Dell MOBOS come with BIOS keys for the version of windows they distribute. Also, they will usually send you exactly the same model so windows would be OK with that.
On the other hand, a company like Alienware may not be able to get you the exact same keyboard because they use high-end retail models. In that case you’d have issues with Microsoft trying to say your replacement was bogus. In that case, you’d have the recipt of warranty to send to MS and they would probably reactivate for you.
If you build your own though, you’ll usually just take the board back to the store or RMA it to the online retailer. In that case, MS would probably give you run around thinking you’re scamming them. You could have a local shop do the replacement for you because they have a “line” to microsoft to qualify it as a repair.
Remember, a while back MS clarified that the “hardware” piece windows would key to was the motherboard… even though you can get it with something else, that’s their control point. Microsoft’s position is that the motherboard “IS” the computer, so they want their “Microsoft Tax” for every one sold… that’s how they calculate piracy! I figured with Vista they’d require the Mobo Trusted Computing key to be tied to the OS key by the OEM directly… espically as draconian things like HDMI require trusted hardware chains… talk about good for business.
I agree. In order to understand the impact of the EULA more clearly, it helps to distinguish between the average user and the advanced user. Average users aren’t involved in benchmarking, nor are they running VirtualPC. Nor are average users really inconvenienced by product activation. Average users get their machines from OEMs — and those machines are preactivated prior to ship; thus, the actual impact is zero. Advanced users, on the other hand, may want to consider the impact of the EULA when deciding if/when to upgrade their organizations to Vista. My guess is that virtualization will be important to organizations now (and even more so in coming years); but, even then, we still don’t know whether virtualization is banned under certain OS SKUs. So, rather than submit to sensationalism, I think everyone should just take a deep breath and relax.
It has been asked, how much longer are people going to put up with this? I suppose as long as it doesn’t inconvenience us.
What was that again about frogs and boiling water? If every reincarnation of Windows has a stricter EULA, but only a tiny bit stricter than the previous one, eventually it will limit every use imaginable. Yet people won’t notice it, because the change has been gradual and small.
Granted, people aren’t frogs, but the analogy is not far-fetched.
exactly, I find the whole VM argument amusing. Flatly, MS is disallowing “cheap” versions of windows in a VM… period. Like you said, I find it hillarious because people are already half cooked frogs debating that maybe Microsoft means you can’t install it “twice” on the same machine…. or use the installed version “differently” in a VM?
People have become so used to teh license of USING the software to equate to COPYING the software they debate if they put a file on the same machine twice! It’s so funny.
Let’s say I buy a Macbook and buy windows. Why is is so wrong to install it under Bootcamp, then call that install from inside Parallels if I don’t feel like rebooting. Techically, it should be a cinch to do… except Microsoft makes it extra difficult by putting roadblocks in the way of your fair use of the software. Frankly, I think Apple has the VT code for intel dual core processors ready to go in Leapord and will soundly slap Microsoft a new one! The VT code can run BOTH OSes at the SAME time and allow hot switching between them. A quick driver on the windows side to allow a cross VT clipboard and you’re golden.. not even violating Microsoft’s NEW license because Windows is running on the base hardware. With a little more work you might be able to remote desktop into that other OS from inside MacOS and get your virtual machine back legally! Maybe that’s why Apple is waiting until after Vista is offically released.. then Microsoft can’t change the license without getting in serious legal trouble!!!!
To view this comment please visit:
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=16343 *1
*1 This comment may change without the written notice of the author
I’m lucky not to be forced to ever buy Vista; the day when games simply require Vista, I’ll stop buying games. I’m lucky to use Linux; no such annoying EULAs. I’m lucky to live in Finland; EULAs don’t apply here anyway =)
EDIT: I thought to add that there actually was a case where in EULA it said you can’t sell the software forth when you don’t need it anymore, but the owner wanted to sell it. The court rule was simple: EULAs don’t apply here, after you have paid for the software, you are free to do with it pretty much as you please.
Edited 2006-10-30 21:37
I have observed a plethora of POSTS concerning the use of the alternative OS.. MAC OSX. If you think about it, their EULA is worse! With MAC, You’ll have to be tied to MAC Hardware and Software! GET REAL!
I still believe MS is the lesser of 2 evils in that regard.
A Real alternative is to support the great causes of the FOSS OSes. There are plenty of them. Take your pick! If you need an alternative DESKTOP with support, Go Suse Enterprise Desktop, and as you learn, tweak it to your liking.
* Starter (OEM pricing only)
* Home Basic ($199, or $99 upgrade)
* Home Premium ($239, or $159 upgrade)
* Business ($299, or $199 upgrade)
* Enterprise (OEM pricing only)
* Ultimate ($399, or $259 upgrade)
man..Microsoft is greedy. Isn’t it the cheapest vista version 50$ more than xp pro (don’t remember how much I payed my oem version) and 100$ than xp home ?
ultimate for 400$ (…..wow..they have no shame : besides eye candy, it requires more horse power and delivers less performance than windows xp….
I really really don’t want to buy windows vista.
(and I probably won’t have to for a long time as the apps I use on windows xp are good enough… cubase sx3, Blender, PovRay, Poser, Brice, etc..)
Besides, I have owned 3 computers since 2001 and I format and reinstall/repair/add some component on my comp on a yearly basis…
So this “you can’t install your 200$+ windows vista more than twice” is a no go for me
Greed shall be microsoft’s undoing/demise.
OSes don’t have to be free but shouldn’t be expensive (you can make money on volume)
Lakedaemon
XP Pro was $199 retail for an upgrade, as far as I know. I think just about no one buys it at that price, though. You can get the OEM pricing if you get it with new hardware, like a MoBo or Hard Drive. Ultimate is more expensive than any non-server version of Windows ever, but if you try out the built-in Speech and Handwriting Recognition, you’ll see that there are some pretty amazing engineering feats still happening at Microsoft.
>I think just about no one buys it at that price
I work at a retail store as a tech, you are right – not many people buy XP Pro that I have found – however, small businesses do.. architectual offices running small networks that do not need the “Server” edition of Windows is a classic example of the type of company that would purchase Pro.
>Speech and Handwriting Recognition, you’ll see that >there are some pretty amazing engineering feats >still happening at Microsoft
Alas, I cannot give you credit here.. IBM introduced speech recognition on the desktop with OS/2 in 1994! -and I must say.. It was just as good – if not better then MSs attempt here.. Vistas attempt at speech recognition suffers terribly when the person has an “English accent” and is pretty much unusable – almost 13 years on – and no advances in this arena
As I read this I just kept thinking about what Princes Leia said to the Microsoft lawyer of her day:
The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
The El Reg article also mentions the bizarre amount of Vista versions. What struck me was the version called (quoting Thurrott):
“Windows Vista Starter
Aimed at beginner computer users in emerging markets who can only afford a low cost PC. (…) Windows Vista Starter (…) is a subset of Vista Home Basic, and will ship in a 32-bit version only (no 64-bit x64 version). Vista Starter will allow only three applications (and/or three windows) to run simultaneously, will provide Internet connectivity but not incoming network communications (…). This version will only be sold in emerging markets.”
(emphasis added)
Am I the only one to whom this smells like condescending, silly neo-colonialism? Can people in Zimbabwe not find out for themselves how many apps can run nicely simultaneously?
And I guess MS thinks it will confuse the average Emerging Market Inhabitant too much if they find out there’s incoming network communication? How utterly arrogant. Must have been “necessary” to make the system secure, I presume.
Or is this perhaps an instance of Great Microsoft Technology that will have Vista running on the old P2 32MB RAM machines that we western overconsumers dump in those “emerging markets”?
My guess it’s time for OLPC – with incoming network communications.
It has absolutely nothing to do with “arrogance” and everything to do with making that version of Windows as useless as possible so that no one will buy it unless they can’t afford anything more expensive. It is meant to be a low priced version of windows that people would use who would otherwise just grab a pirated version – but I think they’ve made it so bad people are just going to keep on grabbing the pirated versions anyway.
what has been said concerning XP activation after changing pieces of hardware is true. When i changed a few things in my “box” i had to reactivate. While MS was “kind” enough to allow me to do so, they could just as easily have refuse and required me to purchase a new copy. I cannot believe we put up with this…we being consumers. I have been using Linux and now OS X for nearly a year. Don’t miss MS at all. I made the jump to Linux when I had to reactivate, the jump to OS X when my Thinkpad died. I do like the fact that while Apple has its own brand of restrictions, they have customer service that is amazing. While no real customer service in Linux, i am free to do as I please. The freedom that *nix based OS’s confer eludes most of the public. They don’t care, especially in the US where going further into debt for a “new” one isn’t such a big deal to them. Me I make computer purchases slowly and with great care, not just because of the pretty pictures or because it runs a particular game…..but I, like most of you, are in the minority on this issue.
These threads crack me up. The outrage over the evil Microsoft for attempting to set restrictions on what can be done with their license. If you don’t like it, don’t upgrade! If you live in a country that allows you to ignore it, then ignore it while patting yourself on the back. A computer is a tool. If Windows or OS X or Linux or whatever you use is working – great! It won’t suddenly stop working because Vista came out and you are outraged over the terms or price.
No, this is wrong. The real question is what EU or US law, in particular consumer protection law and the doctrine of first sale, will permit MS to impose as conditions of sale, in Eulas or in other ways. The issue is not, if you don’t like it don’t buy it. The issue is, are such conditions lawful and enforceable?
Sometimes _not_ buying it is not particularly an option. Alienware wouldn’t ship my laptop out without charging me $99 for XP Home, which never saw the light of day, I had that formatted and sold before first boot; and I use W2K for ACAD, need the 3D for that one and it uses an internal driver. I’ve yet to get this cheapo-printer to work under linux. gah. I’ve little option but to waste 20gb for that 2K partition.
Microsoft’s absolute massive marketshare may not be 100%, but it is a monopoly. They drive and direct tons software and hardware changes/innovations. As such, their actions are concerns (good or bad) for everyone here.
Indeed. Saying they don’t have a monopoly because the marketshare of everything else is in the low single-figures (we’re talking about desktops here) is like saying the electricity company don’t have a monopoly because here and there a hermit has a generator.
Of course….the way it SHOULD be is this:
Any computer you buy at a store should be sold without an operating system. The choices should be made clear at the store that you have a choice. The seller/computer maker will then install the operating system of choice.
that way there is no MS “tax”….you don’t have to wipe the system the minute you get it home and people will have a “real” choice instead of having things forced on them. So the above post is full of beans…since people take the path of least resistance, the only REAL way people will make a voluntary choice is if the choice existed in the first place.
Another choice is to go to a local shop and have them build a machine and SELL it without an OS. I have done this for the last 10 years or so…works great.
Any computer you buy at a store should be sold without an operating system. The choices should be made clear at the store that you have a choice. The seller/computer maker will then install the operating system of choice.
that way there is no MS “tax”….you don’t have to wipe the system the minute you get it home and people will have a “real” choice instead of having things forced on them. So the above post is full of beans…since people take the path of least resistance, the only REAL way people will make a voluntary choice is if the choice existed in the first place.
All that would do is increase wait time and cost because you need employees loading to order at every store that does this, and not every OS is going to be compatible with every PC.
Wal-Mart sells PCs preloaded with Linux on their website. Consumers may purchase those PCs just as easily as a Dell or similar. Many local shops will sell systems with a selection of OSes from which to choose. Macs are sold in far more places.
There is choice in the market. Most people choose Windows.
The MS tax is only seen as a tax by the minority of people seeking something different. There are other vendors that can fulfill that need.
Tier 1 OEMs have tried and failed at offering Linux on their desktop systems. If you want someone else to fill the void, maybe you should lobby Red Hat, Oracle, Novell, IBM, Sun, etc., to combine their efforts and start/buy a company (should be enough money between them) that produces desktops and offers a selection of the respective companies’ products with the hardware. Build a brand and use the companies’ distribution channels to get shelf space in Best Buy, Office Depot, et al., and run more (and better) TV commercials than Apple does while offering comparable pricing to Dell. It may even help if there was one OS preinstalled rather than offering a choice. Make things simple.
If after all of this (brand awareness, wide distribution, a network of channel partners working for a common goal) there is still not a wide adoption of the Windows alternative, then either reassess and improve your strategy or accept that most people actually do choose Windows.
I wonder what is the purpose/reason behind this statement in the EULA?
What is the loss to Microsoft if allowing user install Vista on VM and on the same machine?
Anyhow the user still need to purchase a Vista license and can only run 1 copy at the same time because of other restriction in EULA.
Hope that somebody can point it out ..
It’s a clarification. Windows has always been licensed per machine. Not allowing you to run the same copy of Windows on both the physical machine and the VM falls in line with their licensing of all previous versions of Windows.
What is new is that certain licenses do give you the right to use the same copy in a VM, but you pay for that privilege (e.g., if you buy Windows Vista Ultimate, you are allowed to use the same license to install and run the OS on both a physical machine and a VM).
I don’t care if the license agreement calls for the
blood of my first-borne child — I don’t intend to ever
purchase Vista. I’ll take the time and effort to build my own PC from parts and install Gentoo Linux on it when the time comes to upgrade to a more modern PC.