Windows XP EULA in Plain English [Archive]

TheCaptain

May 6th, 2006, 10:38 PM

Let me give you a hint, this is Ubuntu Cafe, the "Community Chat area for general discussion".

Yah, this area is clearly set aside for XP fud and crap propaganda, it's not like it's the first thread.

I'd wish they were just locked and done with as soon as they are posted, instead they creat linux snobs who, knowing this flawed information, go on their way spreading it and in a multitude of forums people think linux promoters are idiots.

Unfortunantly, anyone promoting ANY OS without getting paid to do so is a complete and utter idiot.

TheCaptain

May 6th, 2006, 10:42 PM

He's a staff member, and your a brand new user...... [-X

If he's a representative of Ubuntuforums i'll make sure to never recommend it for any sane info.

Edit: personal insult removed

helpme

May 6th, 2006, 10:49 PM

...only a complete IDIOT would post such an article, so filled with complete FUD, my guess, he's 12-13 years old max.

Hm, I haven't seen anything from you on this subject except ranting and personal insults.
So please enlighten us noobs, why the article in question is complete FUD.

Thanks.

aysiu

May 6th, 2006, 10:51 PM

this is Ubuntu, not XP FUD and crap

It's complete BS

the entire article is BS and FUD.

YAY for disinformation!

XP fud and crap propaganda

he just doesn't understand ANYTHING about laws OR programming

only a complete IDIOT would post such an article, so filled with complete FUD How about, instead of calling other users idiots and calling the article BS and FUD multiple times, you cite some specific disinformation and write some specific corrections or objections?

blastus

May 6th, 2006, 11:02 PM

How about, instead of calling other users idiots and calling the article BS and FUD multiple times, you (sic TheCaptain) cite some specific disinformation and write some specific corrections or objections?

I second that.

matthew

May 6th, 2006, 11:17 PM

TheCaptain

May 6th, 2006, 11:23 PM

How about, instead of calling other users idiots and calling the article BS and FUD multiple times, you cite some specific disinformation and write some specific corrections or objections?

Everything the article takes objection to is dealt with in law and the implementations seen are not legally implementable.

I have done a fair bit of law research using BSD's licences for other software and extended licences using it in proprietary software.

This is complete FUD, the entire article.

I don't have any money invested in it so i don't really care to pick it apart though, give me something about FreeBSD and i will though.

TheCaptain

May 6th, 2006, 11:26 PM

Wow. I'm fascinated by the response I have received by both detractors and supporters (thanks, all).

I just found the linked article interesting and thought I would share it. Who knew it would touch such a nerve?

It's a good thing I have a thick skin, isn't it? :)

As i said, i'm an A-hole, i don't get why you posted this article without anything to analyze it, it SHOULD be against the rules to do so IMO. At least an analysis of it where you had to back up your own words would have been worthwhile and interesting to discuss.

This is a FUD article, there are hundreds out there for any and every OS, i don't usually respond to them except when they are posted on a forum such as this.

You like Linux, we do too, let's skip the MS chatter and concentrate on Gnome vs KDE and stuff instead, the MS stuff is still just free publicity. ;)

Anyway, nothing personal at all.

aysiu

May 6th, 2006, 11:28 PM

This is a FUD article Can you elaborate a bit more on this statement, please? Thanks.

TheCaptain

May 6th, 2006, 11:33 PM

Can you elaborate a bit more on this statement, please? Thanks.

Of course, pretty much everything in the article is FUD.

I'm not going to spend time picking it apart piece by piece, do a search, many others have.

Just realize that the EULA isn't neccessarily legal, start from there.

aysiu

May 6th, 2006, 11:38 PM

Of course, pretty much everything in the article is FUD. You've stated this many times. A few of us are wondering if you can explain why you think so.

I'm not going to spend time picking it apart piece by piece, But you are going to spend time posting over and over again "this is FUD"?
do a search, many others have. A search for what--your opinions on the matter?

Just realize that the EULA isn't neccessarily legal, start from there. It isn't necessarily legal... so translating the EULA is FUD, but implying that Windows' EULA is illegal is not FUD?

matthew

May 6th, 2006, 11:49 PM

Of course, pretty much everything in the article is FUD.

I'm not going to spend time picking it apart piece by piece, do a search, many others have.

Just realize that the EULA isn't neccessarily legal, start from there.FUD = Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt (for those who don't already know).

1) The article does not create further uncertainty, but rather clarifies Microsoft's standpoint on end users and their rights. Whether this is a legal, binding agreement is being debated in many circles, but since few of us would have the financial resources that they have it isn't likely we will be standing in court challenging the document.

2) The article does not create doubt at all. Instead is is removing doubt as to the meaning and intent of the various clauses in the Microsoft Windows XP Home EULA. Many people are not actually capable of reading the agreement with full understanding so all the article is doing is restating the terms in clear English rather than legal terms.

3) I can't comment on whether someone else feels fear after reading the article or not. I'm no mindreader nor am I an empath.

Based on these three very specific criteria I do not believe the linked article was FUD.

As to this statement:
As i said, i'm an A-hole, i don't get why you posted this article without anything to analyze it, it SHOULD be against the rules to do so IMO. At least an analysis of it where you had to back up your own words would have been worthwhile and interesting to discuss.
my analysis is that this is an interesting article for those wanting to have a clearer understanding of the terms Microsoft has enumerated in their Windows XP Home EULA. Many have had doubts and uncertainty as to what is contained in these agreements (which every legal user has stated their assent to, whether it would hold up in court or not). I again state that I feel the article was clear and balanced, especially when you consider where it originated.

I'm sorry that brief analysis left you wanting more. :)

blastus

May 7th, 2006, 12:02 AM

This is complete FUD, the entire article.

You've stated repeatedly that the entire article is incorrect. OK so let's take one point in the article...

What it Says:
1.1 Installation and use. You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Software on a single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device ("Workstation Computer"). The Software may not be used by more than one processor at any one time on any single Workstation Computer.

What it Means
You may install and use Windows XP Home on one computer.

How is the interpretation of the above incorrect?

As i said, i'm an A-hole, i don't get why you posted this article without anything to analyze it, it SHOULD be against the rules to do so IMO. At least an analysis of it where you had to back up your own words would have been worthwhile and interesting to discuss.

What I don't get is why it would bother you? The OP never make any claims about the article and he is not trying to prove anything. He posted an article that he said some may find interesting and that's it, nothing more nothing less. The OP hasn't broken any forum rules but you have broken the Ubuntu Code of Conduct (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct) by calling other members names.

Even if the article is complete FUD as you claim, who cares? Why do YOU care so much about it? Can you not let others have a viewpoint that may be different from yours--even if you think their viewpoint is absolutely the most stupidest thing you've ever heard of?

TheCaptain

May 7th, 2006, 12:04 AM

You've stated this many times. A few of us are wondering if you can explain why you think so.

But you are going to spend time posting over and over again "this is FUD"? A search for what--your opinions on the matter?

It isn't necessarily legal... so translating the EULA is FUD, but implying that Windows' EULA is illegal is not FUD?

The EULA is based on no law, none of it is tried and true, the parts except the pure spreading of the OS are yet to be tried, that is not FUD, last time i checked anything not defined illegal by law was legal, if you have another definition, well i just don't care.

The article deals with the FUD regarding the EULA, i don't.

You want to know more, GOOGLE, i'm sure you know how to use it. You won't find much regarding my opinions on the matter, except that my opinions concern the legality of certain aspects of it, look, i probably shouldn't even have said anything, i'll take the hint and understand that no one in this forum is capable of getting information if you don't give it to them and be done with it.

IOW, i'll leave this crap alone now, i already got one warning about it and i'm sure i have other things to add more interesting to everyone than this.

Take care.

matthew

May 7th, 2006, 12:13 AM

IOW, i'll leave this crap alone now, i already got one warning about it.Since you brought this up publically let me state the following:

The warning you were given did not come from me, but it did come from another staff member and was given in a private message. It had nothing to do with your opinions in this or other threads, but it had to do with your manner of stating your opinions and how that has conflicted with the Code of Conduct (http://ubuntuforums.org/index.php?page=policy). There have been several user complaints about this and reported posts tonight. I wouldn't want anything else to be insinuated from your post.

Since you are planning to "leave this crap alone now", let's all move on and let this thread stay on topic.

aysiu

May 7th, 2006, 12:15 AM

look, i probably shouldn't even have said anything Finally, we agree on something.
i'll take the hint and understand that no one in this forum is capable of getting information if you don't give it to them and be done with it. Sorry. Telepathy is one service Google doesn't provide. We can figure out a lot of stuff by searching for it, but finding out why you think the article is FUD isn't as easy unless you explain your claim that you've repeated over and over again in this thread.

i'm sure i have other things to add more interesting to everyone than this. Yes. Please add something interesting to the forums--some HowTos, some of your developer's knowledge. People would appreciate that more than name-calling, unsubstantiated claims, and condescending tones.

Protostar

May 7th, 2006, 12:24 AM

That was a very interesting read. I never took the time to read, MSFTs Windows EULA, or any software EULA for that matter. Nice to have a breakdown of it though.

TheCaptain

May 7th, 2006, 12:24 AM

Finally, we agree on something. Sorry. Telepathy is one service Google doesn't provide. We can figure out a lot of stuff by searching for it, but finding out why you think the article is FUD isn't as easy unless you explain your claim that you've repeated over and over again in this thread.

Yes. Please add something interesting to the forums--some HowTos, some of your developer's knowledge. People would appreciate that more than name-calling, unsubstantiated claims, and condescending tones.

Yah, i get it, if someone posts some FUD regarding the legality of the EULA, just don't respond.

It's just better when all you damn trolls get together and agree on how MS is just horrible.

Personally, i don't care much for FUD, perhaps i'm in the wrong forum then?

I'll be condescending towards those who challange me, li have been in this game longer than half of you fools put together, if you don't like it then petition to ban my sorry ***, i seriously couldn't care less, eventually you'll be left with no knowledge and just FUD and crap.

Point being, both RMS and LT would have been banned within five hours in this forum, so would anyone else with any greater knowledge...

I'm not going to spend time explaining all the legalities to everyone, i get paid to do that for one implementation alone, google it and you'll find why and yes, actually Microsoft Eula legality turns up one of my articles.

TheCaptain

May 7th, 2006, 12:25 AM

That was a very interesting read. I never took the time to read, MSFTs Windows EULA, or any software EULA for that matter. Nice to have a breakdown of it though.

See why now?

People actually believe this crap... *sigh*

openmind

May 7th, 2006, 12:36 AM

US Law has decided against The EULA, as in this case in Federal court;

http://www.xent.com/pipermail/fork/2001-November/006809.html

"If you put your money down and walked away with a CD, you bought that copy, EULA or no EULA."
However, another point of view is, that if you have explicitly agreed terms in acontract why would you want to break your word?

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=13730

"Well because I view an EULA as a contract. A contract I actually agreed to when installing the software. And I'm personally not in favor of breaking contracts,"

Virogenesis

May 7th, 2006, 12:44 AM

See why now?

People actually believe this crap... *sigh*
Ok TheCaptain are you allowed to use Microsoft windows on more than one computer?
Remember they do liceses for a reason.

2.4 Thats correct my job in the past was doing tele sales and companies do collect data and share it.
BT I believe do and many of the store cards you apply for sell your details on.

4. reverse engeering.... we all know the problems with that
5. States you cannot rent out xp with is understandable
6. once again allows microsoft to make money throught marketing.
7. Just trying to cover themselves if a link is considered bad in anyway.
8. covering themselves....
9. true as they do a check against the SN for sp2.
10. true again not for resale are oems
11. student copy ever heard of that? well they only issue those out to students I was offered macromedia studio for free or was it reduced i can't remember.
12. why would they add that?
13. true again you're not allowed to run xp on more than one computer.
14. covering themselves again....

where is the FUD?

Virogenesis

May 7th, 2006, 12:46 AM

Point being, both RMS and LT would have been banned within five hours in this forum, so would anyone else with any greater knowledge...I suggest you listen to RMS if you're gonna talk about him as you'll find he actually does a talk on these matters I'm afraid to say.
Want the link to the vids so you can see for yourself?

o_fortuna

May 7th, 2006, 12:49 AM

Telepathy is one service Google doesn't provide.
Haven't you ever tried MentalPlex (http://www.google.com/mentalplex/MP_faq.html)?
Comes in handy when you just don't know what to search for. :p

Anyway, I found the article a bit misleading in places.

You agree that Microsoft can automatically and without your consent put new software on your computer.
The EULA doesn't say that it will put NEW software on your computer without your consent -- just updates to old software:

may provide upgrades or fixes

Software developers cannot attempt to figure out how Windows XP Home works for any reason.
That's not really what it says. Actually, the EULA is very nebulous here. My translation would be: "No one can try to figure out how Windows XP works unless the law says they can." ... which is pretty stupid.

You may not rent, lease, or lend your computer with Windows XP Home on it or otherwise make commercial use of it.
I'm not quite sure if that's really what it means - it's talking about the software, not the hardware. Should be more like "you may not rent, lease or lend your copy of Windows XP Home or otherwise make commercial use of it."

this should not include personal information about you.

may not include personal information about you.
This is a bit of a cheap shot since they are using "may" and "should" when the EULA uses "will not."

Microsoft may cancel any service that they provide to you at any time and for any reason.
More misinformation: the EULA clearly states "internet-based."

you are legally bound to comply.
The EULA doesn't say anything about legality.

Just my two cents. I never realized the stuff about warranty. I mean, if I'm paying them $200 for something you'd think they'd at least guarantee it works for more than three months. I mean, Ubuntu was free and they offer support for 18 months. And I can upgrade forever. And I didn't have to read through any legal mumbo-jumbo to install it either.

TheCaptain

May 7th, 2006, 12:55 AM

I suggest you listen to RMS if you're gonna talk about him as you'll find he actually does a talk on these matters I'm afraid to say.
Want the link to the vids so you can see for yourself?

RMS is a kook, a complete wazoo if you ask me. He'd still be banned if he joined this forum, so would Linus Thorvalds.

Did you purposly miss my point?

Protostar

May 7th, 2006, 12:56 AM

See why now?

People actually believe this crap... *sigh*

I don't quite understand what you are trying to say. Can you elaborate?

AndyCooll

May 7th, 2006, 12:57 AM

I must admit that I found that an interesting read. Like most people, I doubt I've fully read or understood a EULA before. And it is worrying what some of the statements say; roughly along the lines of "we can uninstall/disable services without your consent" and "we're not responsible for anything going wrong with your pc, even if it's as a a result of our faulty software".

Probably this EULA is typical of many others of its kind. Here in the UK we have the Sale Of Goods Act which essentially states that the item must be sold "fit for its purpose" and that the vendor does have certain responsibilities to the consumer if things go wrong. And yet software companies absolve all responsibility. I doubt that folk would blindly accept such a lack of vendor responsibility if they were purchasing anything other than computer software.

:cool:

TheCaptain

May 7th, 2006, 12:57 AM

Haven't you ever tried MentalPlex (http://www.google.com/mentalplex/MP_faq.html)?
Comes in handy when you just don't know what to search for. :p

Anyway, I found the article a bit misleading in places.

The EULA doesn't say that it will put NEW software on your computer without your consent -- just updates to old software:

That's not really what it says. Actually, the EULA is very nebulous here. My translation would be: "No one can try to figure out how Windows XP works unless the law says they can." ... which is pretty stupid.

I'm not quite sure if that's really what it means - it's talking about the software, not the hardware. Should be more like "you may not rent, lease or lend your copy of Windows XP Home or otherwise make commercial use of it."

This is a bit of a cheap shot since they are using "may" and "should" when the EULA uses "will not."

More misinformation: the EULA clearly states "internet-based."

The EULA doesn't say anything about legality.

Just my two cents. I never realized the stuff about warranty. I mean, if I'm paying them $200 for something you'd think they'd at least guarantee it works for more than three months. I mean, Ubuntu was free and they offer support for 18 months. And I can upgrade forever. And I didn't have to read through any legal mumbo-jumbo to install it either.

This is why i didn't break it down, now you'll have to argue every god damn point.

You are right about pretty much everything except that none of it except the copyright law is legally binding.

Virogenesis

May 7th, 2006, 12:59 AM

Anyway, I found the article a bit misleading in places.

They intend it to be.

The EULA doesn't say that it will put NEW software on your computer without your consent -- just updates to old software:

new software could be considered an update if its too stop you from copying music or anything like that.

Virogenesis

May 7th, 2006, 01:00 AM

This is why i didn't break it down, now you'll have to argue every god damn point.

You are right about pretty much everything except that none of it except the copyright law is legally binding.
So what you are telling me is this article isn't actually FUD but the tactics used by Microsoft are?

TheCaptain

May 7th, 2006, 01:02 AM

I don't quite understand what you are trying to say. Can you elaborate?

1. the article is flawed in every point it makes, please don't believe that crap.

2. the EULA is not legally binding beyond copyright law.

3. this article paints a wishful scenario if every intention was correct and if any of it was legal.

See my point, unless the EULA is a legal contract (a legal contract must be presented before purchase and agreed upon at the time of the purchase.

The EULA has NEVER been legally enforced, NEVER.

Even if it was, the horror stories are just ridiculous and examples of what happens when you have an article writer that thinks too much. (if said article writer was a political article writer the US would have already invaded the rest of the world and it was great according to international law)

:mad:

Virogenesis

May 7th, 2006, 01:06 AM

1. the article is flawed in every point it makes, please don't believe that crap.

2. the EULA is not legally binding beyond copyright law.

3. this article paints a wishful scenario if every intention was correct and if any of it was legal.

See my point, unless the EULA is a legal contract (a legal contract must be presented before purchase and agreed upon at the time of the purchase.

The EULA has NEVER been legally enforced, NEVER.

Even if it was, the horror stories are just ridiculous and examples of what happens when you have an article writer that thinks too much. (if said article writer was a political article writer the US would have already invaded the rest of the world and it was great according to international law)

:mad:So I can sue Microsoft for any data lose due to a system crash and win?

o_fortuna

May 7th, 2006, 01:12 AM

new software could be considered an update if its too stop you from copying music or anything like that.
But... that's not what the EULA says. At least, not in that particular section.

except that none of it except the copyright law is legally binding.
Whether the EULA is legally binding is beyond the scope of the article.
This seemed like a good explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrink_wrap_contract

Virogenesis

May 7th, 2006, 01:17 AM

But... that's not what the EULA says. At least, not in that particular section.

True but look at 2.1.... :(

o_fortuna

May 7th, 2006, 01:29 AM

True but look at 2.1.... :(
Too true. But, that's section 2.1. THAT section says Microsoft may download "revocation lists," which isn't new software, it just makes your DRM'ed content not work. That's not installing new software since Windows XP (apparently?) includes software to control your content based on the "revocation lists." It's this DRM/The content providers control the content stuff.

Richard Stallman talks about it in this well-written (imo) essay: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html

AndyCooll

May 7th, 2006, 01:30 AM

To say EULA's are not binding and have not been tested in court isn't true.

They are and have been successfully upheld: No hacking Blizzard games (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050902-5270.html)

AndyCooll

May 7th, 2006, 01:34 AM

And this is the Electronic Frontier Foundations view on the subject (another interesting article ;) ):
Dangerous Terms: A User's Guide to EULAs (http://www.eff.org/wp/eula.php)

:cool:

MetalMusicAddict

May 7th, 2006, 01:37 AM

Great start here "Captin". You may be right but theres alot to be said for how you get your point across.

RavenOfOdin

May 7th, 2006, 02:02 AM

*jackass attitude ad nauseam*

And I thought LordHunter317 was bad . . .
*sighs*

To say EULA's are not binding and have not been tested in court isn't true.

They are and have been successfully upheld: No hacking Blizzard games (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050902-5270.html)

"No hacking Blizzard games"?

The last I checked, Diablo II was the most hacked out game on the face of the EARTH.

I should know, I led a clan on it for about three and a half years.

RavenOfOdin

May 7th, 2006, 02:04 AM

*jackass attitude ad nauseam*

And I thought LordHunter317 was bad . . .
*sighs*

I'll be condescending towards those who challange me.

Then you sure as hell don't want me to let loose with what I actually think of you.

To say EULA's are not binding and have not been tested in court isn't true.

They are and have been successfully upheld: No hacking Blizzard games (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050902-5270.html)

"No hacking Blizzard games"?

The last I checked, Diablo II was the most hacked out game on the face of the EARTH. I should know, I led a clan on it for about three and a half years and all the BS centered around "trainer this" "legit that" "crash that" . . .

Now, I think all the cheaters have moved to WoW and begun a cult centered around Chuck Norris.

K.Mandla

May 7th, 2006, 09:09 AM

Wow. That's all I can think right now. Glad I'm free.

mostwanted

May 7th, 2006, 11:03 AM

1. the article is flawed in every point it makes, please don't believe that crap.

Please back up your statement. It's possible to make just about any postulate in the world and no one will believe you unless you explain why it is so.

2. the EULA is not legally binding beyond copyright law.

The parts of an EULA that are not binding are the parts that are not allowed according to the specific country's law. To say that only the parts that adhere to the copyright law apply is false (it may be so in the US, it may not, I don't know).

3. this article paints a wishful scenario if every intention was correct and if any of it was legal.

See my point, unless the EULA is a legal contract (a legal contract must be presented before purchase and agreed upon at the time of the purchase.

The EULA has NEVER been legally enforced, NEVER.

Even if it was, the horror stories are just ridiculous and examples of what happens when you have an article writer that thinks too much. (if said article writer was a political article writer the US would have already invaded the rest of the world and it was great according to international law)

Wishful is hardly the word. "Scary" sounds better in my ear. And I think people realise that the EULA must be backed by actual law for it to be true.

AndyCooll

May 7th, 2006, 05:52 PM

"No hacking Blizzard games"?

The last I checked, Diablo II was the most hacked out game on the face of the EARTH. I should know, I led a clan on it for about three and a half years and all the BS centered around "trainer this" "legit that" "crash that" . . .

Now, I think all the cheaters have moved to WoW and begun a cult centered around Chuck Norris.

Hmmm ...I must confess that I didn't know about the hacking of the game since I never play it. I didn't even read the full transcript of the court case. I was merely using it as an example of a software company going all the way through the courts to enforce their EULA.

MenZa

May 7th, 2006, 07:28 PM

Man, that was a good article -- best read I've had in a long time. Good translation, too.

Iandefor

May 7th, 2006, 08:01 PM

And I thought LordHunter317 was bad . . .
*sighs* Lordhunter just doesn't have a lot of patience for ignorance. I've seen him in plenty of arguments. This fellow is just plain annoying.

Anywho, I thought it was an interesting article, although the "translation" missed a few important points and pulled a few cheap shots. For instance, 1.1 reads:

1.1 Installation and use. You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Software on a single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device ("Workstation Computer"). The Software may not be used by more than one processor at any one time on any single Workstation Computer. and is translated as:

You may install and use Windows XP Home on one computer. But misses: The Software may not be used by more than one processor at any one time on any single Workstation Computer. That implies people with dual-core processors have to restrict Windows XP Home from running system software on both processors somehow. And that also implies you can't run Windows in a clustered environment.

6's translation is also a bit of a cheap shot. It does say:
Microsoft may use this information solely to improve our products or to provide customized services or technologies to you and will not disclose this information in a form that personally identifies you.
but this gets translated to:

but this should not include personal information about you.

Zombie process

May 8th, 2006, 01:19 AM

Just my two cents. I never realized the stuff about warranty. I mean, if I'm paying them $200 for something you'd think they'd at least guarantee it works for more than three months. I mean, Ubuntu was free and they offer support for 18 months.

Ubuntu offers you updates for that period and I believe you can pay for technical help (support). But it does not offer you any legal warranty (read the disclaimer that appears upon logging to a non-graphical terminal).

This is not a bad thing per se, especially if you think of the programmers that make free software that are in no position of economically standing a demand for some corporation that uses their software (likely without giving them money at all) and happened to find a bug on it.

Actually, I am fine with the fact of not having automatic assurance/warranty against errors in proprietary programs also (assuming I can get such assurance for environments where it really is a must). I am more concerned with the fact that those programs may become the only path of access to my data and that a single company/individual may get to set the conditions on which I may use (if at all) said program and change such conditions retroactively.

nocturn

May 8th, 2006, 08:54 AM

It's complete BS and you should trust it as much as a Linux article from "windowsadvocate.com".

Christ...

It is actually very valuable, even on a Linux forum where a lot of our users dual boot.

The point is that the EULA is promoted as a legally binding contract, yet most users fail to read it before agreeing (and fail to get a refund if they refuse to accept it).

I read a large part of it once out of interest, and some of the provisions in it are staggering. Most users don't know because they just click 'I Agree'.

Regarding the FUD claim, you can check the wording yourself in the EULA if you like. It seems factually correct at first glance.

nocturn

May 8th, 2006, 08:56 AM

And somone bought the FUD...

YAY for disinformation!

Can you point out what portions of the 'plain english' translation are not correct?
Maybe good to point it out to the author of the article too.

nocturn

May 8th, 2006, 08:59 AM

Unfortunantly, anyone promoting ANY OS without getting paid to do so is a complete and utter idiot.

Why?

Linux and the Free Software movement have very nice ideals behind them. I promote them without profit, something I would not want to for any commercial entity.

nocturn

May 8th, 2006, 10:06 AM

Everything the article takes objection to is dealt with in law and the implementations seen are not legally implementable.

I have done a fair bit of law research using BSD's licences for other software and extended licences using it in proprietary software.

There are two issues here.
1) What is actually in the EULAs that almost nobody reads. Are you claiming that what this site claims is in them is not correct?
2) Are EULA's legally binding? This hasn't been tested very well in court and my depend greatly on the country you are living in. I for one would not like to try my luck.

nocturn

May 8th, 2006, 10:08 AM

As i said, i'm an A-hole, i don't get why you posted this article without anything to analyze it, it SHOULD be against the rules to do so IMO. At least an analysis of it where you had to back up your own words would have been worthwhile and interesting to discuss.

This is a FUD article, there are hundreds out there for any and every OS, i don't usually respond to them except when they are posted on a forum such as this.

You like Linux, we do too, let's skip the MS chatter and concentrate on Gnome vs KDE and stuff instead, the MS stuff is still just free publicity. ;)

Anyway, nothing personal at all.

First off, he just posted a link to an article that he thought may be interesting to others. The burden is on the author to back up his claims, and you are free to critize it, something you haven't done already.

In fact, you have not shown any factual errors in the article so far.

nocturn

May 8th, 2006, 10:11 AM

Just realize that the EULA isn't neccessarily legal, start from there.

Whether EULAs can be legally upheld is completely unrelated to the wording in them and I'm not volunteering to try it out in court.

The article is just pointing out what is in the EULA, so can you at least point out one item they got wrong?

nocturn

May 8th, 2006, 10:32 AM

Yah, i get it, if someone posts some FUD regarding the legality of the EULA, just don't respond.

Nobody said EULAs are legally binding. The only thing is that the companies making them hope they are, otherwise they wouldn't create them in the first place.

I will ask you again, can you point out a single error in the interpretation of the EULA in the article?
If you cannot, but still claim that EULA's are not binding, can you prove for each country our userbase comes from that this is true?

Again, the article backs up their interpretation with the original EULA text, I do not see you offer similar proof of your viewpoint.

It's just better when all you damn trolls get together and agree on how MS is just horrible.

I'm getting a bit tired of namecalling. Please do not refer to others as trolls unless you can substantiate it.
If you do find a post to be trolling, there is a 'report post' button.

Personally, i don't care much for FUD, perhaps i'm in the wrong forum then?

The thing is that just pointing to something and call it FUD is meaningless.
Back up your claim why it is factually incorrect and people will listen.
So far, you have shown neither myself or the others anything factually wrong in that article besides your unsubstantiated and irrelevant claim that EULAs are meaningless.

Point being, both RMS and LT would have been banned within five hours in this forum, so would anyone else with any greater knowledge...

If they registered on the forum to call other users name, they would be banned regardless of their knowledge or position, not because of it.

actually Microsoft Eula legality turns up one of my articles.

Is it that hard to post a link to it?
Secondly, even if you deal with this issue and you would be correct, that does not make the wording of the EULA any less true, nor can I imagine that you did your research based on any arbitrary country in the world. So your claim that they may not be legally binding may relate only to your own country.

nocturn

May 8th, 2006, 10:35 AM

US Law has decided against The EULA, as in this case in Federal court;

Good for them! But I'm not actually in the US, so this means little to me personally. And even if I'm safe, any other user may not be.

Even if the EULA is legally meaningless, if they take me to court on it here, I will be broke paying for my legal representation before I ever get to court, so I loose anyway.

nocturn

May 8th, 2006, 10:52 AM

The EULA doesn't say that it will put NEW software on your computer without your consent -- just updates to old software:

Hmm, this is a tricky wording issue. The EULA does clearly say fixes AND updates, where an update is new software. You can argue this either way, but I can see their viewpoint as well as yours.

That's not really what it says. Actually, the EULA is very nebulous here. My translation would be: "No one can try to figure out how Windows XP works unless the law says they can." ... which is pretty stupid.

This wording is indeed very unclear. But I largly agree with their interpretation. If I read it correct, the only exception would be a law that explicitly grants you the right to do this. But I'm not even sure about this.

I'm not quite sure if that's really what it means - it's talking about the software, not the hardware. Should be more like "you may not rent, lease or lend your copy of Windows XP Home or otherwise make commercial use of it."

Again, the translation is correct. If you dual boot your system with Ubuntu, you can lend it out. But you cannot lend it when this includes lending your windows installation.

This is a bit of a cheap shot since they are using "may" and "should" when the EULA uses "will not."

Will not was used when disclosing to third parties. They EULA does not say it will not include personal information when used internally. It is ambiguous though.

More misinformation: the EULA clearly states "internet-based."

Yes, but that is somewhat implied by the use of the word services. They can terminate your access to updates etc. Again, ambiguous.

nocturn

May 8th, 2006, 10:56 AM

1. the article is flawed in every point it makes, please don't believe that crap.

I'm sorry, but that sounds like FUD to me.

OK, what does this mean to you:

1.2 Mandatory Activation. The license rights granted under this EULA are limited to the first thirty (30) days after you first install the Software unless you supply information required to activate your licensed copy in the manner described during the setup sequence of the Software. You can activate the Software through the use of the Internet or telephone; toll charges may apply. You may also need to reactivate the Software if you modify your computer hardware or alter the Software. There are technological measures in this Software that are designed to prevent unlicensed use of the Software. Microsoft will use those measures to confirm you have a legally licensed copy of the Software. If you are not using a licensed copy of the Software, you are not allowed to install the Software or future Software updates. Microsoft will not collect any personally identifiable information from your Workstation Computer during this process.

I think the translation is very accurate, but please prove me wrong.

nocturn

May 8th, 2006, 11:00 AM

2. the EULA is not legally binding beyond copyright law.

Can you back this up for any country where the EULA is used?

3. this article paints a wishful scenario if every intention was correct and if any of it was legal.

The article just points out what the wording means. Even if it wasn't legally binding, this is what the company that wrote the EULA wants to enforce, regardless of whether they can.

The EULA has NEVER been legally enforced, NEVER.

Which has nothing to do with the intent of the company that wrote it and you cannot possibly be sure that it is invalid in any country where it is used.

nocturn

May 8th, 2006, 11:02 AM

But... that's not what the EULA says. At least, not in that particular section.

Yes, but what defines an update?
If Gnome 2 is an update to Gnome 1, but it also contains Evolution etc, this still is an update.

If MP 14 contains software that seeks and destroys downloaded MP3's, it's an update.

ygarl

May 8th, 2006, 01:02 PM

I "third" it.
What exactly is wrong with this article then?
I am reading the EULA verbatim, side-by-side with the 'translation' and it looks alarmingly accurate once the REAL BS is stripped out...

Am I missing something? It's absolutely spot-on with what my CD and docs say on the wife's Dell XP info!

Iandefor

May 8th, 2006, 04:08 PM

12 posts in a row, nocturn!

I'm not only amused, I'm also impressed.

nocturn

May 8th, 2006, 04:11 PM

12 posts in a row, nocturn!

I'm not only amused, I'm also impressed.

LOL

I think I'm in a different timezone then most who posted. The thread came in overnight and I just step-by-step replied to the posts :-)

aysiu

May 8th, 2006, 04:33 PM

I'm with Nocturn on this one.

Matthew innocently posted a link and said it was interesting and rather accurate, considering the source.

TheCaptain said about twelve times it was "FUD" without ever explaining why he/she thought so. After being pressed enough, he/she finally demanded people use Google to search for the reasons why it's FUD, which doesn't make any sense.

Then, suddenly, we got thrown off onto this tangent about whether the EULA was legal or legally enforceable, which has nothing to do with the translation of the text from legal-ese to plain English.

The fact of the matter remains: no one has plainly stated how the translations are inaccurate, except maybe some brief touches on what exactly it means for Microsoft to add or remove software.