Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 21st Aug 2012 21:57 UTC
Windows With Windows 8 right around the corner, the usual game of reading the end-user license agreements and spotting the different versions is in full swing. Usually, this is a game of ridicule as Microsoft comes up with ever more convoluted version schemes and EULA terms. This time around, though, the company seems to be taking steps to make things easier, as Ed Bott reports.
Thread beginning with comment 531851
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Why would companies care?
by leech on Wed 22nd Aug 2012 23:59 UTC
Member since:

I have to ask this. I mean why would they really care? I know of NO companies that are crazy enough to update all their workstations every Operating System release. We're just barely moving most of the workstations over to 7. Vista was a total crapshoot and we don't even support it for our clients.

I don't see Windows 8 being all that used in the corporate environment, regardless of what Microsoft wants.

Besides, as far as I know, the EULAs have NEVER stood up in court, anywhere. GPL has because it's a copyright rather than just a license.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Why would companies care?
by Alfman on Thu 23rd Aug 2012 04:40 in reply to "Why would companies care?"
Alfman Member since:


"Besides, as far as I know, the EULAs have NEVER stood up in court, anywhere. GPL has because it's a copyright rather than just a license."

I'm not following your distinction? "License" is right there in the GPL acronym.

Take a look at this case as it may be a counter-example:,_Inc._v._Zeidenberg

I find this ruling disappointing for various reasons. One of which is that phone directories are not supposed to be copyrightable. The judge ignored this and essentially concluded the EULA trumps copyright law. There wasn't even a formal contract in place, just a damned clickwrap license. I'd write this one up to a seriously bad judge, but it has established a precedent. It proves that with the "right" judge, you can get any ruling you want.

What I find despicable with "clickwrap" licenses generally is:
1) they aren't explicitly available at the time of purchase
2) you have to "agree" to them before you can see the product
3) Opened software typically is not accepted for return if one doesn't agree with the EULA. It's notoriously difficult.

For example, Dell's return policy is:
"We accept returns of software for refund or credit only if the package containing the disks is sealed and unopened."

Clickwrap licensing is a scam.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Why would companies care?
by leech on Fri 24th Aug 2012 12:12 in reply to "RE: Why would companies care?"
leech Member since:

Well, I did say it isn't "just a license." Meaning that while it is a license agreement, it's also a copyright agreement.

It states that the copyright holders are indeed the authors of the source code and to be able to change the license, you would have to get all of the contributors to the source code to agree.

Reply Parent Score: 2