OSDN | Our Network | Newsletters | Advertise | Shop     X 
Welcome to Slashdot News Technology Television GNU is Not Unix Patents
 faq
 code
 awards
 journals
 subscribe
 older stuff
 rob's page
 preferences
 submit story
 advertising
 supporters
 past polls
 topics
 about
 bugs
 jobs
 hof

Sections
apache
Jul 23

apple
Aug 3
(1 recent)

articles
Aug 5
(27 recent)

askslashdot
Aug 5
(11 recent)

books
Aug 2

bsd
Aug 3
(1 recent)

developers
Aug 5
(4 recent)

features
Jul 18

interviews
Aug 5
(1 recent)

radio
Jun 29

science
Aug 4
(6 recent)

yro
Aug 5
(5 recent)

More MS EULA Fun
MicrosoftPosted by timothy on Sunday August 04, @09:28AM
from the if-a-eula-falls-in-the-forest dept.
gray code writes: "The Register is reporting that Microsoft has placed an interesting wrinkle in the EULA of WinXP SP1 and Win2k SP3 that asks for the same remote admin rights as the Windows Media Player patch that raised such an uproar. I think I'll be leaving my Win2k box at SP2, thank you very much." Update: 08/04 15:05 GMT by T: Helix150 writes that a separate EULA for W2K's SP3 "contains this nasty bit: 'You may not disclose the results of any benchmark test of the .NET Framework component of the OS Components to any third party without Microsoft's prior written approval.' Hmmm..."

 

 
Slashdot Login
Nickname:

Password:

[ Create a new account ]

Related Links
· wrinkle in the EULA of WinXP SP1 and Win2k SP3
· Windows Media Player patch
· T
· More on Microsoft
· Also by timothy

Your Rights Online
· SEC Institutes Proceedings Against Rodona Garst
· Governmental ID System in Japan
· All We Want Is Whatever's On Your Machine
· More MS EULA Fun
· 80% Of Incoming E-mail At Hotmail Is Spam
· Interview with DMCA-challenger
· HP Backs Off DMCA Threat
· VeriSign and Other Registry Giants Blast ICANN
· U.S. Computer Security Advisor Encourages Hackers
· South African Gov And ECT Bill

<  80% Of Incoming E-mail At Hotmail Is Spam | Buy One Book, Get Twenty-Two Free  >
More MS EULA Fun | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 582 comments | Search Discussion
Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2 (Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50)
And if they didn't? (Score:3, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 04, @09:31AM (#4007608)
Microsoft is required to make this revision in their EULA in order for Automatic Updates to work. If it makes you wary (as if you actually use the OSes) then disable it. Control Panel > Automatic Updates > uncheck Keep My Computer Up to Date. (In Windows XP, the same thing can be found in the System configuration applet of the Control Panel.) Feel free to read the links on that property page to discover what Automatic Updates does, and in newer incarnations, Scheduled Updates.

I believe the fact that this is disablable makes it moot. Such functionality, I think, is almost required for any OS that will play the role of desktop OS. I personally haven't seen the behaviors that take place with Windows 2000 SP3, but Windows XP did alert me the first time it started and before it checked for any updates, permitting me to disable the feature entirely or select from a couple of notification options.

I'm not sure it is acceptable to assume that an end user will actively participate in the maintenance of the software on their system to ensure, above all else, security. Windows had the Windows Update icon sitting in the Start Menu since Windows 98, and it went ignored. As mentioned before, Automatic Updates was released as a part of Windows XP last October. It was also released as an individual update to Windows 2000 over a month ago.

And before we crucify Microsoft alone for including this "heinous" behavior, check Apple. Mac OS has performed automatic updating since Mac OS 9. I don't know about any other software, but I would love to see some form of update checking and/or installation method for servers, especially the variety that are intended to be installed, turned on, and forgotten, like email notifications or schedulable updates. I'd also like to see a move to create a standard through which updates can be propogated for any software. Some software already scan, like Adobe Acrobat Reader, Macromedia ShockWave, and I think QuickTime. If there were one place, maybe things could be more organized and more user friendly.

In any case, justification is pointless. I know people don't like the idea. But, it can be disabled, and if you don't like it, I suggest doing so and updating manually.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:And if they didn't? (Score:5, Interesting)
    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 04, @09:32AM (#4007612)
    Gee that was fast, almost seems like u had it prepared.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:And if they didn't? (Score:4, Interesting)
    by cyberlotnet on Sunday August 04, @09:36AM (#4007625)
    (User #182742 Info | http://www.scifi-forums.com/)
    The issue you microsoft loving moron is the EULA does not say that by turning off the Auto updates they wont do anything to your system..

    The EULA gives them TOTAL power of your computer no matter what you do short of taking away any connection between you and them..

    This means its within there power to say, Hey look hes got a pirated version of "Austin Powers The Spy Who couldnt come up with a second Orginal Movie and had to use the same old jokes over and over" and WIPE your system TOTALLY.

    Its not the Ability to Auto Update.. ITS THE BROAD power there poorly worded EULA gives them.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:And if they didn't? (Score:5, Insightful)
    by Pius II. (`PiusII' `at' `gmx.de') on Sunday August 04, @09:40AM (#4007643)
    (User #525191 Info)
    Bzzzt, wrong. The passage (as quoted from the article) is: "You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the version of the OS Product and/or its components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades or fixes to the OS Product that will be automatically downloaded to your computer." With the automatic update functionality both in Windows 2000 and in Mac OS, you actively check if there are updates available for your system. This may happen through a cron job (whatever that's called in Windows), but it is your computer that checks. The new passage of the EULA says that _Microsoft_ may check _your_ computer, without your notice, and then "upload" their "fixes". This is, if you haven't noticed, the other way around. The automatic update can be disabled (it is on my working machine), but this? Since you gave _them_ the right to mess around with your computer, I doubt that you can disable this "push update". Furthermore, this may constitute a serious security problem: if MS can upload what they want on your system, some other people could do, too.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:And if they didn't? by Libor Vanek (Score:1) Sunday August 04, @09:42AM
  • Re:And if they didn't? by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Sunday August 04, @09:46AM
      Re:And if they didn't? (Score:5, Informative)
      by 19Buck on Sunday August 04, @10:19AM (#4007763)
      (User #517176 Info | http://www.viahardware.com/)
      Yes, it DOES have to do with the Windows Automatic Updates.

      I checked the Automatic Updates Control Panel Applet, It was clearly unchecked, as in "Don't check for updates".

      Yes, when I checked my system services, there was Automatic updates set to Start automatically and currently started and running even though It was clearly disabled in Control Panel.

      Set to manual, stop the service, that should do it.

      Nowhere did I see the Eula state "with or without your consent" either. Stop making stuff up.

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      • Re:And if they didn't? by ostiguy (Score:3) Sunday August 04, @01:35PM
        • Re:And if they didn't? (Score:4, Insightful)
        by stinky wizzleteats on Sunday August 04, @02:51PM (#4008705)
        (User #552063 Info | http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday February 27, @04:31PM)

        Nowhere did I see the Eula state "with or without your consent" either. Stop making stuff up.

        Following is an excerpt from the Win2ksp3 supplemental EULA: (text bolded by post author)

        The OS Product or OS Components contain components that enable and facilitate the use of certain Internet-based services. You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the version of the OS Product and/or its components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades or fixes to the OS Product that will be automatically downloaded to your computer.

        I don't know what "automatic" means to you, but according to my understanding of English, it seems to preclude consent.

        Yes, it DOES have to do with the Windows Automatic Updates.

        Then why is it not a supplemental EULA for auto-update, rather than the operating system patch? That this EULA change was made to the operating system service pack suggests that your interpretation of M$'s intentions are incorrect.

        Further interesting is that the excerpt quoted above does NOT appear in the EULA to which you must agree to begin the download, but only in the EULA click box that comes up when you begin installing sp3. The preambles of both statements are identical, clearly demonstrating the intent to deceive the user.

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:And if they didn't? by sgtsanity (Score:1) Sunday August 04, @09:58AM
  • Re:And if they didn't? by imnoteddy (Score:2) Sunday August 04, @10:36AM
    • Clear as mud (Score:4, Interesting)
    by xigxag (slashdotatxigxagdotcom) on Sunday August 04, @10:55AM (#4007872)
    (User #167441 Info)
    The real question that I have is if "download" can be LEGALLY interpreted as "download and install". After all, I download OS patches all the time, but I can decide to install them (or not) at my leisure. Does this EULA change give MS the legal right to install their "upgrades" without my knowledge or consent?

    Also, what happens if one of their "fixes" happens to wipe out a Linux partition? Are we supposed to accept that this agreement absolves them of any liability? If you rent an apartment, your lease may allow your landlord to go into your house for necessary repairs ("fixes"? "upgrades"?) without your consent. But that doesn't mean if he breaks something else while he's there that he is absolved of any liability. I'd think that MS ought to be very cautious of performing these updates without any warning whatsoever. I believe they've already had faulty [pcworld.com] patches in the past.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • Re:Clear as mud by Beliskner (Score:2) Sunday August 04, @12:39PM
      • Re:Clear as mud (Score:5, Insightful)
      by jc42 on Sunday August 04, @12:52PM (#4008261)
      (User #318812 Info | http://trillian.mit.edu/~jc/)
      > what happens if one of their "fixes" happens to wipe out a Linux partition?

      That's clearly covered by their EULA. Read the part that says they have the right to disable any software that is capable of copying DRM-protected files. The linux "cp" command satisfies this. The linux kernel is capable of running the cp command. And note that linux is capable of mounting Windows partitions and reading Windows files.

      The legal argument is left as an exercise for the reader.

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:And if they didn't? by SmallFurryCreature (Score:1) Sunday August 04, @11:31AM
  • Re:And if they didn't? by monomania (Score:1) Sunday August 04, @12:01PM
  • Auto updating and Apple by Wyatt Earp (Score:2) Sunday August 04, @12:03PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:And if they didn't? by Melantha_Bacchae (Score:2) Sunday August 04, @12:27PM
  • No, it's about who controls the updates by tres (Score:2) Sunday August 04, @01:11PM
  • Re:And if they didn't? by Guppy06 (Score:2) Sunday August 04, @01:19PM
  • Re:And if they didn't? by AJWM (Score:3) Sunday August 04, @01:57PM
  • Serious question about your consumer rights vs. M$ by RallyNick (Score:2) Sunday August 04, @02:36PM
  • Re:And if they didn't? by SoupIsGoodFood_42 (Score:1) Sunday August 04, @03:25PM
  • Why is software so different? by shepd (Score:1) Sunday August 04, @03:41PM
  • Re:And if they didn't? by Snoopy77 (Score:1) Sunday August 04, @07:39PM
  • Re:And if they didn't? by EelBait (Score:1) Sunday August 04, @08:47PM
  • Re:And if they didn't? by 11390036 (Score:2) Sunday August 04, @09:44AM
  • 6 replies beneath your current threshold.
Im waiting for Windows to be like some Cars.. (Score:3, Insightful)
by cyberlotnet on Sunday August 04, @09:32AM (#4007611)
(User #182742 Info | http://www.scifi-forums.com/)
The old "Your door is a jar" bit..

Come home after a long day of work and sit down at your computer.. Turn your monitor on ( because no real geek turns off his computer ) and get a screen that says

"Your computer is trash" then in small fine print "Microcrap was so nice as to try to upgrade me for you however the patch they installed had a fatal flaw and I am now toast, I am sorry you where not around to approve this stupidness"
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Microsoft... (Score:2, Funny)
by eventhorizon5 on Sunday August 04, @09:32AM (#4007613)
(User #533026 Info | http://www.tliquest.net/)
Just block them (Microsoft) with your firewall. No more worries :)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
You're assuming too much (Score:1, Insightful)
by ObviousGuy (ObviousGuy@hotmail.com) on Sunday August 04, @09:34AM (#4007621)
(User #578567 Info | Last Journal: Sunday August 04, @10:20AM)
Most people just click OK and are done with it. Microsoft never comes to pick up their first-born. The users just go about their business making money with Windows.

It's really only the people who are afraid of having their warez/MP3 collection deleted or who are pirating Windows itself that are afraid of these remarks in the EULA. Most users are not worried about those things because they have nothing to hide.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Can you say Intel processor serial's deja vu? (Score:1)
by chemguru (chemguruNO@SPAMhotmail.com) on Sunday August 04, @09:44AM (#4007656)
(User #104422 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
The EULA also states that it can pull OS version and Product ID info along with IE version info, Plug&Play ID numbers, and more.

How much hell did Intel get for playing this game?

--JamesT
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
SP3 and DirectX 8.1 (Score:2, Interesting)
by jackb_guppy on Sunday August 04, @09:49AM (#4007676)
(User #204733 Info)
Was playing with SP3 last night. Its reports at least 10 different modules in DirectX as "untrustworthy".

I just sat and laughed.

How get this effect?

Load W2K, Load SP3, Load DirectX
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Odd by Otis_INF (Score:2) Sunday August 04, @10:14AM
    • Re:Odd by cfreeze (Score:1) Sunday August 04, @10:33AM
      • Re:Odd (Score:5, Interesting)
      by Malcontent (malcontent@msgto.com) on Sunday August 04, @02:49PM (#4008698)
      (User #40834 Info)
      "VisualStudio.NET bombs the Linux developer right back to the stone age."

      Did you know that Visual Studio limits your ability to release your code under license you want? If you use visual studio you are not allowed to write GPLed software.

      I don't care how nice it is, I value my freedom too much to use it.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      • Re:Odd by ic3p1ck (Score:1) Sunday August 04, @09:13PM
          Re:Odd (Score:5, Informative)
          by Malcontent (malcontent@msgto.com) on Sunday August 04, @10:11PM (#4009983)
          (User #40834 Info)
          Relavant quote.

          Open Source. Recipient’s license rights to the Software are conditioned upon Recipient (i) not distributing such Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with Potentially Viral Software (as defined below); and (ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in whole or in part. For purposes of the foregoing, “Potentially Viral Software” means software which is licensed pursuant to terms that: (x) create, or purport to create, obligations for Microsoft with respect to the Software or (y) grant, or purport to grant, to any third party any rights to or immunities under Microsoft’s intellectual property or proprietary rights in the Software. By way of example but not limitation of the foregoing, Recipient shall not distribute the Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with any Publicly Available Software. “Publicly Available Software” means each of (i) any software that contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any software that is distributed as free software, open source software (e.g. Linux) or similar licensing or distribution models; and (ii) any software that requires as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of such software that other software distributed with such software (A) be disclosed or distributed in source code form; (B) be licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (C) be redistributable at no charge. Publicly Available Software includes, without limitation, software licensed or distributed under any of the following licenses or distribution models, or licenses or distribution models similar to any of the following: (A) GNU’s General Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library GPL (LGPL), (B) The Artistic License (e.g., PERL), (C) the Mozilla Public License, (D) the Netscape Public License, (E) the Sun Community Source License (SCSL), and (F) the Sun Industry Standards License (SISL).
          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          • Re:Odd by hyperturbopete (Score:1) Sunday August 04, @11:28PM
            • Re:Odd by hyperturbopete (Score:1) Sunday August 04, @11:34PM
            • Re:Odd by anshil (Score:2) Monday August 05, @08:15AM
          • Re:Odd by orthogonal (Score:2) Sunday August 04, @11:53PM
      • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:SP3 and DirectX 8.1 by Cid Highwind (Score:1) Sunday August 04, @11:14AM
Perception (Score:5, Interesting)
by Raven-sama on Sunday August 04, @09:54AM (#4007693)
(User #527194 Info)
I think that the main problem people have with this whole idea of the change in the EULA is that it's not exactly well publisised by Microsoft. Every time they bring out a point release or a service pack, there is always some subtle difference in wording, or a little thing added.

Windows has a reputation for being insecure, and thing's like this aren't going to help. If Microsoft can upload and install things on your PC at will, who's to say that someone else couldn't do the same thing? The reason Windows Update was a manual process was so you can keep track of what you install.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Install without permission yea ok (Score:2, Insightful)
by cyberlotnet on Sunday August 04, @09:54AM (#4007694)
(User #182742 Info | http://www.scifi-forums.com/)
Also got to think about whos doing this.. Microsoft has a long history of putting out products with bugs and security issues...

You want to risk your Quicken database with all your bank info being stolen because Microsoft installed some software with defaults on that allow anyone access to your computer?

They have released software/patches in the past with this issue, How do you know they wont do the same with some Forced update?

If so Im for hire, I will change the tranmission in your car for a one time fee of only $500 and I promise you "wink wink" that There will be no problems with my work.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Read the msft docs...then make your call (Score:4, Interesting)
by rochlin on Sunday August 04, @09:58AM (#4007707)
(User #248444 Info | http://www.bestportlandrentals.com/)
The good and real question is: Should I go to SP3 from SP2. An important point -- MSFT's automatic updates can be disabled Read the docs [microsoft.com]. That means that you may give away the right to MSFT to abuse your computer, but from a practical point of view, you can disable the means for them to do it.

A lot of time on Slashdot is spend carping about bugs in MSFT software. SP3 fixes hundreds above and beyond previous hotfixes. Check them out for yourself [microsoft.com] and decided whether you would rather have a better functioning Windows or stand up for civil liberties.

Both are legitimate practical considerations. One might be more pressing depending on your current state of employment...

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
You have no choice (Score:5, Interesting)
by rehabdoll (rehabdoll@ho3.14159me.se minus pi) on Sunday August 04, @10:04AM (#4007726)
(User #221029 Info)
There is no point in not updating to SP3. You could either run Win2k with known security issues or patch/install sp3 with the new EULA. This is not unique to SP3/SP1, since all new patches contains the same EULA as SP3/1.. give or take.

I find it interesting that this is legal, to change the conditions in PATCHES.

Why dont they just add the line "..and every microsoft employee may get to have sex with your partner"
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Not new (Score:1)
by SkipToMyLou (JIm42688@hotmail.com) on Sunday August 04, @10:13AM (#4007744)
(User #595608 Info | http://www.geocities.com/jim42688/)
That clause has been in the Media Player EULA for ages.

Yeah, it's bad, and it's always been bad.

It was quoted in the DOJ trial against MS. See the 12th paragraph [usdoj.gov] of this document.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
A case for the EU commission (Score:5, Interesting)
by theolein on Sunday August 04, @10:18AM (#4007759)
(User #316044 Info | http://www.hotmao.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday July 11, @09:53PM)
I posted this further down as a reply to someone else's post, but I'd like to reiterate that I will be emailing the EU commision investigating MS's business practices about the legality of this EULA. I don't know about the USA (the laws semm to be more relaxed towards privacy there) but I have an idea that this contravenes privacy laws ere in the Europe. As was staed in the EULA, it has beeen changed to specifically state that one allows Microsoft access to your machine and nowhere states what the definition of an upgrade or fix is. On top of this it nowhere states that Microsoft will *NOT* damage, access or delete private data (is this part of an upgrade or fix?). In short there are, AGAIN, no guarantees that Microsoft will NOT compromise my company's or my data.

I think that at the very least, Microsoft should be required by law to provide an EXACT definition of what constitutes an upgrade or fix and what Liability Microsoft has. It really is time that software companies were made 100% as liable for their shoddy, devious and deceptive practices as car manufacturer's are for example.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
The wrong Focus... (Score:2, Interesting)
by vofka on Sunday August 04, @10:20AM (#4007765)
(User #572268 Info | Last Journal: Sunday August 04, @08:45PM)
<PARANOIA MODE="ON">

IMHO, most people are focusing on the wrong aspect of this change. Sure, this change in the EULA gives MS the power to connect to, scan, and update the OS Software on your PC - and with their past record with releasing buggy, security-flaw ridden software, one should think that having the most recent patches installed ASAP would be a good thing (though MS Have been known to go from bad to worse with some of their patches!)

However, you all seem to be missing a more obvious implication - if MS can connect to your machine to load Legitemate updates, How long do you think it will be before your local 3v1l Hax0r d00d works out how to spoof the mechanism to his/her own ends?

It's not necessarily what you are allowing MS to do that you should be worring about - it's what you will be allowing the rest of the world to do that should worry you!

<PARANOIA MODE="OFF">
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
MS has some legal obligations. (Score:1)
by red_gnom on Sunday August 04, @10:22AM (#4007772)
(User #545555 Info)

  When I was making a purchase decision concerning Windows 2000, I was also taking under consideration the license agreement, and future bug fixes. Microsoft is under legal obligation to support the product, to allow me to download the patches, and service packs for the product for which I paid, without forcing me to do, or not to do some other things, which were not discussed in the original license agreement.
  They are really becoming a pain in the ars not only for their competition, but now also for their customers, which is stupid. Such abuse of power, and trust (or rather what was left of it) by Microsoft will anger, and turn a lot of users away. There are reasonable alternatives to most of MS products on the market right now, and they are getting better, and more attractive every day.

The days are counted.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Might as Well Read... (Score:1)
by Nashville Guy on Sunday August 04, @10:33AM (#4007809)
(User #585073 Info)
"You agree to allow Microsoft to become your default corporate network administrator. We will decide, without regard to the stable PC images you built and deployed, and regardless of any specialized applications you may be running, what patches will be applied to the OS on your production machines. If your non-Microsoft, mission critical software stops working after that, you need to get with your software maker."

This is new EULA is Microsofts way, in my mind, of saying "Hey, you people that don't patch your systems, even in the face of known flaws, are making us look bad. Screw this, if you won't do it, we will!"

hu·bris (hyoobris) also hy·bris (hibris) n.

Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance: "There is no safety in unlimited technological hubris" (McGeorge Bundy).

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
We're watching the wrong hand (Score:5, Interesting)
by perfects on Sunday August 04, @10:40AM (#4007836)
(User #598301 Info)
"You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the version of the OS Product and/or its components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades or fixes to the OS Product that will be automatically downloaded to your computer." That's two separate things. Unless I'm reading it wrong, even if you can disable the automatic updates there's no provision for disabling Microsoft's snooping. Now, if the agreement said something like... "You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically provide upgrades or fixes to the OS Product that will be automatically downloaded to your computer, and for the purposes of doing so may check the version of the OS Product and/or its components that you are utilizing" ...I would be less suspicious of their intentions.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Did you see the .NET clause? (Score:2, Insightful)
by javajoe99 (salscotto@noSPAm.telocity.com) on Sunday August 04, @10:42AM (#4007838)
(User #471731 Info)
Interesting if you saw if:

You may not disclose the results of any benchmark test of the .NET framework component of the OS Components to any thirdparty without Microsoft's prior written approval.

How about that, wonder what they are trying to hide? SP3 must contain some of the .NET framework stuff. I thought it was a seperate download, as it was BETA for W2k. No I know for sure I am not gona install this SP.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Live with it and then just upgrade to a better OS (Score:2, Interesting)
by t_allardyce on Sunday August 04, @10:43AM (#4007840)
(User #48447 Info | http://www.tf94.com/ | Last Journal: Monday June 17, @06:30PM)
There must be ways around this (not legal ofcourse) for example, you could set your firewall not to make or accept connections to microsoft's servers, thus blocking new patches that might contain drm code. There can't be anything in Windows that would disable the OS if it did not receive a patch regularly since they would have to account for the fact that some people simply dont have internet/network connections.

Microsoft isnt playing nice. neither am i (i've never paid for a copy of windows) - win2k is the last microsoft OS i will ever use.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Forcing a contract is illegal. (Score:5, Interesting)
by Futurepower(R) (sdfpr@NOTTHISfuturepower.net) on Sunday August 04, @10:44AM (#4007842)
(User #558542 Info | http://futurepower.org/)

Forcing someone into a new agreement is illegal. Governments should give this some attention. The updates are necessary, partly because the software is sloppily written. The user does not have a good option; the only option is to get a new operating system and re-train everyone, and accept that some programs on which a business is dependent don't work. That's force.

You can remove the Microsoft EULA: Windows VBScript for automatically removing the click-through End-User License Agreements found in most installers [google.com].

It's no fun to work at an abusive company. We are seeing a rise in the number of sneaky contracts. This seems due to the presence of people with no technical knowledge at technically oriented companies. These people cannot contribute to the real work of the companies; all they can do is invent ways to abuse the customer.

As companies become more abusive, it becomes more miserable to work there. If you are good at what you do, quit and get a job somewhere where people are treated like people.

This is where it is all leading:

EULA:
  1. I can do anything I like.
  2. You have no power.
  3. You can't say anything bad about me.
  4. Everything belongs to me.
I knew a 3-year-old who said this.

Slashdot has a sneaky EULA, too. At the top of every Slashdot article, it says, "The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way."

This sounds like you own your comments, doesn't it? However, the OSDN Terms of Service [osdn.com] says at section "4. CONTENT", paragraph 6,

"In each such case, the submitting user grants OSDN the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sublicensable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable Open Source Initiative-approved license."

The contract is written in such a way as to appear that it has been made intentionally confusing. However, it looks like "comments are owned by whoever posted them" means that, yes, you own the intellectual property you created, but VA Software Corporation owns it too.

This appears similar to owning a car, but under the condition that someone else can use it at any time, and without notifying you. In any case, Slashdot's The Fine Print is misleading; it is not all of the fine print, although that line at the top of each story certainly encourages you to believe it is.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
I don't get it (Score:1)
by Branc0 on Sunday August 04, @10:51AM (#4007856)
(User #580914 Info | http://www.syners.org/)
Will it become illegal to install SP3 for W2K and have a firewall that blocks Windows Update?

Hey Microsoft... you've been shooting yourself so many times in the foot for over a year... just get the gun and blow your head off... do us all a favor !

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Remote Admin Rights? (Score:2)
by WildBeast on Sunday August 04, @10:53AM (#4007863)
(User #189336 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
If I want Windows to update itself everytime there's a new update, shouldn't I give it remote admin rights? How else will it auto-install?

When I use up2date in RedHat, I need to be looged on as the admin and also be registered with them.

It's funny that people make such a big deal out of licenses. Licenses are written by lawyers for lawyers. Not even the developers had an idea of what it is except for those who like to waste valuable time reading the pages and pages of the licenses.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
unannouced patches? (Score:1)
by Gaima on Sunday August 04, @10:54AM (#4007867)
(User #174551 Info)
Most people who install SP3 aren't going to read the EULA, or know about the automatic updating.
Also, automatic updating has been a 'Critical Update' on windowsupdate for sometime now, and been in WinXP from the outset.

When these features gain a critical mass (not long now with win2k having it too), has anyone thought of an alternate possibility? Like pushing security patches invisibly to the majority without having to tell anyone?

If they can't write the software properly in the first place, fix the problems without telling anyone. Nice.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Here is a copy of the changes... (Score:2, Informative)
by (H)elix1 on Sunday August 04, @11:01AM (#4007889)
(User #231155 Info)
Additional Rights and Limitations.

  * With respect to the OS Components only, if the licensor of the
      applicable OS Product was an entity other than Microsoft,
      then for the purposes of this Supplemental EULA Microsoft
      will be the licensor with respect to such OS Components in
      lieu of the "Manufacturer" or other entity and support, if
      any, for such OS Components shall not be provided by
      Manufacturer. With respect to the existing functionality
      contained in the applicable OS Product which is not updated,
      supplemented, or replaced by the OS Components, the EULA
      for the OS Product shall remain in full force and effect as to
      that OS Product.

  * If you choose to utilize the update features within the OS
      Product or OS Components, it is necessary to use certain
      computer system, hardware, and software information to
      implement the features. By using these features, you
      explicitly authorize Microsoft or its designated agent to
      access and utilize the necessary information for updating
      purposes. Microsoft may use this information solely to
      improve our products or to provide customized services or
      technologies to you. Microsoft may disclose this
      information to others, but not in a form that personally
      identifies you.

  * The OS Product or OS Components contain components that
      enable and facilitate the use of certain Internet-based
      services. You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may
      automatically check the version of the OS Product and/or its
      components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades
      or fixes to the OS Product that will be automatically
      downloaded to your computer.

  * If you have multiple validly licensed copies of the applicable
      OS Product(s), you may reproduce, install and use one copy
      of the OS Components as part of such applicable OS Product
      (s) on all of your computers running validly licensed copies
      of the OS Product(s) provided that you use such additional
      copies of the OS Components in accordance with the terms
      and conditions above. Microsoft, its subsidiaries and/or
      suppliers retain all right, title and interest in and to the
      OS Components. All rights not expressly granted are
      reserved by Microsoft, its subsidiaries and/or suppliers.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Uhhhh, that's not in the EULA... (Score:2, Interesting)
by naibas on Sunday August 04, @11:09AM (#4007904)
(User #109074 Info)
I find it interesting that as of this post, the offending statements are not in the EULA I got from clicking on Windows Update, selecting SP3 only, and clicking "review and install". I couldn't find anything out of the oridinary, in fact. Where was the original EULA found? Do you have to get it off their web page to see this?

Well, either way, I'm gonna install it. I personally feel that there is a lot of paranoia running around, as for Microsoft to initiate an upload of some software updates to a random windows user X, there would be a HUGE GAPING HOLE in the security of the software (if M$ can do it, 1337 h4x0rz can do it...), plus they would have to know your IP (which seems to change on a regular basis for many home users I've met). So that leaves two avenues: auto-updates (for those who leave that enabled), and manual updates. For those who've used the Window Update feature to manually update, You get a fair amount of information on each update, and although they could sneak something by, I think someone out there would figure it out, and I don't think microsoft is blind to the fact that the public outcry would be substantial.

At least that's my opinion.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Microsoft wants all your computers (Score:1)
by Windows Me on Sunday August 04, @11:09AM (#4007905)
(User #560862 Info)
You really beleive that. Maybee microsft just does this to see how crazy /. will go. If that is true Bill will be laugh even as I type
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Script kiddies' wet dream (Score:3, Insightful)
by ryanvm on Sunday August 04, @11:18AM (#4007935)
(User #247662 Info | http://127.0.0.1/)
I think I'll be leaving my Win2k box at SP2, thank you very much.

I don't think the mainstream public really cares about what's in a EULA. Hell, I generally don't either. But just think of the implications of people refusing to install patches and security updates because they're accompanied by EULAs with bizarre "big brother" clauses.

Now, with that said did any of you bother to read the article? Here is the offending text:

"You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the version of the OS Product and/or its components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades or fixes to the OS Product that will be automatically downloaded to your computer,"

A little sensationalistic to call this "remote admin rights" isn't it? Basically, this just gives them the legal legroom required to make their automatic updates feature work, which is a good thing. It means more patched machines out there - less of that Nimda shit.

Nobody's spying on your MP3 collection. There's nothing to see here, folks.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
.NET disclosure NOT new (Score:1)
by mwalleisa (mwalleisa AT acm DOT org) on Sunday August 04, @11:27AM (#4007969)
(User #561970 Info)
Actually, that bit about 'You may not disclose the results of any benchmark test of the .NET Framework component of the OS Components to any third party without Microsoft's prior written approval.' is not new -- that has been part of the standard MS EULA that you are presented with every time you download an update from the Windows Update site for Windows 2000 since they changed the format over to the current one (the XP-themed Windows Update site, v4). What is amusing is that you see that same non-disclosure condition even if the only update you download is the "Root Certificates Update" or even a driver download. How can it be legally binding to impose a license condition like this on a component download when that component has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the OS component referred to by the restriction?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Easy Solution (Score:2)
by JohnA (johna@irev.nope.com) on Sunday August 04, @11:29AM (#4007978)
(User #131062 Info | http://www.analystscan.com/ | Last Journal: Monday July 22, @09:31PM)
Just find a nearby minor to press the "I Accept" button for you. Done and done!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Ha ha Ha.... (Score:1)
by di0s on Sunday August 04, @11:40AM (#4008019)
(User #582680 Info | http://cabbot.lightrealm.com/)
In A.D. 2101
War was beginning.
IT Guy: What happen ?
End user: Somebody set up us the auto-update.
Network Admin: We get signal.
IT Guy: What !
Network Admin: Main screen turn on.
IT Guy: It's You !!
Billg: How are you gentlemen !!
Billg: All your boXen are belong to us.
Billg: You are on the way to destruction.
IT Guy: What you say !!
Billg: You have no chance to survive make your time.
Billg: HA HA HA HA ....
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Benchmark restrictions invalid (Score:2)
by dh003i on Sunday August 04, @11:43AM (#4008026)
(User #203189 Info | http://home.rochester.rr.com/tweak/)
No court in the nation is going to enforce any restricitons which prevent one from publishing an evaluation of a product -- certainly not benchmarks, which are one of the most important tools for evaluation. The public has the right to know how well a product works.

As for the automatic update worry, one should note that the whole issue is moot so long as the user can disable automatic updating (in which case, they'd update manually, and only select the things for which they wanted and presumably knew what they contained).
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
It's not just MSFT with performance restrictions (Score:2)
by joeflies on Sunday August 04, @11:43AM (#4008028)
(User #529536 Info)
As I mentioned in an earlier post [slashdot.org] there are many companies that enforce this in their EULA. It becomes especially common if the software package targets the enterprise.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Why corporatism needs to be restrained... (Score:1)
by WCMI92 (<wcmi> <at> <wvradio.net>) on Sunday August 04, @12:02PM (#4008082)
(User #592436 Info | http://wvradio.net/)
Given the tendency of MS "service packs" to "coincidentally" BREAK third party software upon installation (as NT Service Pack 6 did to Lotus Notes), do you REALLY want BillG loading them onto your servers and desktops AT WILL?!

Also the benchmarking clause is a classic... So you aren't allowed to publish benchmarks that reveal that .NET server is slower than 2K server? Or that 2K server is slower than NT server? (which is all true, BTW).

And especially you can't release benchmarks comparing it to a Linux server. No way

When will it end? And, to bring up an old point, WHAT LIMITS are there that a corporation can put into a contract? Also, what right does MS have to alter the EULA for Windows on a SERVICE PACK (ie, a release of fixes for PRODUCT DEFECTS in the original)?

Seems to me that they are COERCING you into accepting the more restrictive license, because not doing so means running a defective product.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Ximian Connector Too (Score:2)
by Bob9113 (rot13:obo@genkry.pbz) on Sunday August 04, @12:03PM (#4008090)
(User #14996 Info | http://traxel.com)
You may not disclose the results of any benchmark test of the .NET Framework component of the OS Components to any third party without Microsoft's prior written approval.

Ximian Connector's license does this too. I asked the regional sales rep to remove it. He referred me to a VP who did not respond to my email.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
I installed SP3 on my Win2K laptop (Score:3, Interesting)
by ericman31 on Sunday August 04, @12:26PM (#4008161)
(User #596268 Info | Last Journal: Thursday August 01, @10:32AM)

My work provided laptop is Win2K. I don't have any choice in the matter, that is the company required OS. I installed SP3 last night. It changed my auto-update setting to automatic without telling me. At work and at home I am behind firewalls. In the work environment all updating of Windows is handled internally, not by windowsupdate.microsoft.com. At home I patch manually. I don't want auto-update turned on. Since I always turn it off, I didn't realize it had been turned on until I checked, after reading this story on slashdot.

I have submitted a formal request for exception to be allowed to install Solaris or Linux on my laptop since I all of my work is primarily done on Solaris platforms. As of right now I have no intention of any of my own PC's having Windows ever again (my personal workstation is RedHat 7.1) and if I get this exception same rule goes at work. My wife uses Mac, and so does my son.

I have never seen RedHat or Solaris updates change settings on my PC/server/etc without asking if it was okay to do so. Solaris packages ask if it's okay to install with root permissions or modify permissions. When is the last time a Windows package asked you that? I've been using computers since about 1979, I'm tired of being treated like I'm stupid. I suspect a major part of the reason users are stupid is because software companies taught them to be stupid.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Thanks MS! (Score:1)
by Jack Brennan on Sunday August 04, @12:28PM (#4008172)
(User #597055 Info)
Stories like this keep affirming my decision to switch to Debian.
Now it's a great laugh watching people bend over for Mr Bill!
Can't wait for the upcoming story how an SP "accidentally" blows away everyone's MP3s!

Seriously, why do people stand for this crap?
What's so damned great about windows that's worth clicking away all your rights?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
In all seriousness... (Score:2)
by orbital3 on Sunday August 04, @12:40PM (#4008212)
(User #153855 Info)
This is the kind of thing that I'm sure actually will eventually get me to switch to Linux. I've been using DOS/Windows for as long as I can remember. I've tried Linux before, but it's either been too hard to get working (hardware incompatibility, etc.) or it just plain sucked. It feels kludgey, and I just don't feel much incentive to relearn how to use my computer when it works fine the way it is
   
  I admit, I've never purchased one Microsoft product (aside from their awesome mouse and maybe a game or two published by them). Right or wrong, that's the way it is. But eventually, as these licenses get more and more restrictive, I'm seriously getting that much closer to making myself switch. I'm downloading Knoppix right now to see how much has improved since I last tried Linux... I seriously hope it's up to snuff by now... It _sounds_ good, now that Warcraft 3, etc. are playable in Wine, but we'll see.
   
  Offtopic side question that you can choose to ignore: Can anyone explain the advantage of Linux having all the different stupid partitions? Isn't an easily configurable swap _file_, etc. just as good as a partition? Partitions are the worst part of the Linux experience, imo, regardless of whether modern installers can set them up automatically or not. I actually like the fact that with FAT32, I can just boot off a disk, deltree the appropriate files and do a fresh install.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Future EULAs (Score:3, Insightful)
by GreyyGuy on Sunday August 04, @12:42PM (#4008219)
(User #91753 Info)
If this automatically downloads and installs future patches, does this mean that you do not have to agree to any new EULAs? Since you won't be clicking "I agree" on them, do they count?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Shills? (Score:1)
by AtariKee on Sunday August 04, @12:48PM (#4008246)
(User #455870 Info)
This will probably be modded down as flamebait, but I really don't care.

I knew the second that this article was pointed out, the MS shills would come out in record numbers.

You people aren't fooling anybody. We know who you are, and who pays you to post to defend this crap.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
2 things (Score:1)
by rushiferu on Sunday August 04, @12:52PM (#4008262)
(User #595361 Info)
1. No contract can contain terms or requirements that are against the law. Is it legal to say you can't post benchmarks? Isn't that a violation of free speach? As long as your not posting any propriatary info with them...

2. If your that worried about MS taking over your system, just set up your firewall to block them when your not downloading updates. Probably better to have a propper firewall set up anyway. MS isn't the only one trying to get at your system.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Since the AT&T breakup, (Score:1)
by Snork Asaurus on Sunday August 04, @01:03PM (#4008303)
(User #595692 Info)
Lily's been waiting for a chance to dust this one off. The time is nigh:

"You can't do that, it's my computer!" he told Ernestine at Microsoft.

"Mr. Veedle, that's so cute!", she snorted " No, no, no, you're dealing with Microsoft. We are not subject to city, state, or federal legislation. We are omnipotent!"

(With apologies to Lily Tomlin)

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Applies to large corporate customers too? (Score:1)
by michael_cain on Sunday August 04, @01:16PM (#4008358)
(User #66650 Info)
Does anyone know if these same terms are showing up in service packs delivered to large corporate customers? Our IT organization gets really bent about people not having the "standard" OS and app images on their machines, and their own tools and schedules for upgrades. They would presumably go ballistic if thousands of machines starting getting into odd states because of partial upgrades...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Here's the real problem - updates without Update (Score:4, Insightful)
by Animats (slashdot-replies@downside.com) on Sunday August 04, @01:17PM (#4008362)
(User #122034 Info | http://www.animats.com)
The real question is whether this license allows Microsoft to do things to your machine even if Windows Update is off. (Obviously, you don't want to run Windows Update on any machine doing anything important. Microsoft has slipped up in the past and broken working systems.) One clause of the EULA applies only if Windows Update is on. But the next clause presents a problem:
    The OS Product or OS Components contain components that enable and facilitate the use of certain Internet-based services. You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the version of the OS Product and/or its components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades or fixes to the OS Product that will be automatically downloaded to your computer.
Could this be construed to allow Microsoft to access your machine even with Windows Update off? Corporate users, especially sysadmins, should bring that clause to the attention of their attorneys. It's probably unwise for corporate users to install this update without obtaining legal advice.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
What if *I* wasn't the one who accepted? (Score:1)
by tgv on Sunday August 04, @01:52PM (#4008503)
(User #254536 Info)
I read the remark about "get a minor to press accept", but more realistically, it's going to be the system administrator who accepts the EULA, which leaves me free to do whatever I want. He can't make the "promise" in my name.

What will this lead to? Does the EULA not apply to other users, or will we get a login screen with all EULAs pertaining to all software once installed on the system?

And what about people who don't understand what they accept? E.g., I am not a native speaker of English, yet I use systems with English "localisation". The only way to stop them accepting the EULA without understanding is to have some kind of test afterwards. Especially in the read-all-when-logging-in scenario this can become quite a problem...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Slashdot being astroturfed? (offtopic) (Score:5, Interesting)
by wrinkledshirt on Sunday August 04, @02:12PM (#4008570)
(User #228541 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
At 6:28 am an article is posted about the negative aspects of the new Microsoft EULA. At 6:31 am an Anonymous Coward posts a well-written, generally grammatically-correct response that explains the need for it.

The response is 383 words. That's over 127 words per minute.

Furthermore, this paragraph smacks of being mandate-driven...

And before we crucify Microsoft alone for including this "heinous" behavior, check Apple. Mac OS has performed automatic updating since Mac OS 9. I don't know about any other software, but I would love to see some form of update checking and/or installation method for servers, especially the variety that are intended to be installed, turned on, and forgotten, like email notifications or schedulable updates. I'd also like to see a move to create a standard through which updates can be propogated for any software. Some software already scan, like Adobe Acrobat Reader, Macromedia ShockWave, and I think QuickTime. If there were one place, maybe things could be more organized and more user friendly.

Am I the only one getting the feeling that ./ is being actively astroturfed?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Pity the Dial-Up Users (Score:2, Informative)
by reallocate on Sunday August 04, @03:19PM (#4008806)
(User #142797 Info)
Putting aside the usual rants that will spew forth here, I'd be really ticked if I was a dial-up user and MS started pushing a multi-megabyte patch to me the next time I checked my email. Especially if I was billed for time on line.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Oh the irony... (Score:5, Funny)
by ameoba on Sunday August 04, @03:24PM (#4008830)
(User #173803 Info | http://ameoba.0pi.com)
I just love slashdot's faithfulness to the cause. Right below a blatantly anti-MSFT article was a big Visual Studio.NET advertisement. I'm saving a screenshot of this.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Making a slipstream W2K SP3 cd doesn't change eula (Score:1, Informative)
by Bismarck on Sunday August 04, @03:30PM (#4008844)
(User #83517 Info)
Try it for yourself.

1) Windows 2000 cd original.
2) Slipstream service pack 3 into it (admins do this).
3) Install it to a drive on a computer.
4) MARVEL at the fact that slipstreaming DOES NOT change the EULA and that you have the ORIGINAL W2K EULA while using sp3.

The burning question is, what are the legal implications of this discovery? Slipstreaming is a standard admin procedure. Which EULA is valid. The one you were presented with, or the one they want you to use but didn't bother changing when you slipstreamed.

I really want to know.

(Slipstreaming for those who don't know, is when you put service patches or updates into a base install so they are pre-installed and don't require you to install them over and over for every machine on a network. This is done often for Office for example where patches are streamed into an admin install and then by executing one command they can update every office install on the entire network without having to walk to each computer and doing it by hand.)

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Question by Futurepower(R) (Score:1) Monday August 05, @01:40AM
Tell them what you think (Score:1)
by lewis2 on Sunday August 04, @03:46PM (#4008902)
(User #212695 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
I've bought sevearl windows O/S licenses as well as office licenses. The SP3 EULA crossed a line for me so I let them know I will not be buying their O/S products.

Let them know what you think.

http://support.microsoft.com/common/survey.aspx?sc id=sw;en;1076
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Advertisement (Score:1)
by kasperd on Sunday August 04, @04:16PM (#4008960)
(User #592156 Info)
Gues who had an advertisement [daimi.au.dk] on the page when I saw it?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
.NET performance (Score:2)
by Citizen of Earth on Sunday August 04, @04:41PM (#4009083)
(User #569446 Info)
You may not disclose the results of any benchmark test of the .NET Framework component of the OS Components to any third party without Microsoft's prior written approval.

Translation: "Yeah, it's slow as hell. Shut up about it!"

(Of course, XML, SOAP, et al.: why would anyone expect it not to be slow?)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 14 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • (1) | 2 (Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50)
    		  Most people feel that everyone is entitled to their opinion.
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2002 OSDN.
    [ home | awards | contribute story | older articles | OSDN | advertise | self serve ad system | about | terms of service | privacy | faq ]