But it's in the license

Post #28,038 by drewk 2/11/02 12:28:40 PM Reply	But it's in the license It doesn't matter that you can turn a feature off. (Well, it does, but that's not what the article was about.) What matters is that the license requires you to agree to some terms that are explicitly at odds with the terms that some organizations operate under. You have to agree that Microsoft can inspect some part of the contents of your hard drive. You have to agree that they can upgrade or install software on your system. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]
Post #28,041 by Andrew Grygus 2/11/02 12:44:27 PM 2/11/02 6:35:58 PM Reply	And worse . . This language may be there to protect some other method of accomplishing this than the one you can turn off, or to pave the way for removing that option. Unlike most technology companies, Microsoft has long range plans and starts the groundwork early. Standard sequence Put in the clause and hope nobody pays any attention. If somebody notices, tell them "It doesn't actually mean what it says". If the noise just won't quit, reword it. Later, put it back in with different phrasing. Nobody'll make any noise because it's old hat. "Everybody already knows about that." Start sending out the lawyer letters to violators of the license. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx] Edited by Andrew Grygus Feb. 11, 2002, 06:35:58 PM EST Expand All History
Post #28,045 by pwhysall 2/11/02 1:19:06 PM Reply	As always... ...one must read the actual licence. Here's the relevant section: Internet-Based Services Components. The Product contains 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 Product and/or its components *that you are utilizing* and may provide upgradres or fixes to the Product that will be automatically downlaoded to your Workstation Computer. [my emphasis] Now, that does not read to me like an unconditional reservation of right to inspect your computer; only a reservation of right to inspect the version of your OS and its components should you choose to use the internet-based services. There may well be nefarious doin's down the line, but I don't think this is the start of it. More likely from my experience is that MS will just rev the version of Windows, announce that "this is the subscription only version, suck it down" and USA, Inc. and UK plc will do just that. Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #28,061 by drewk 2/11/02 2:43:07 PM Reply	I don't read it that way You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the version of the Product and/or its components that you are utilizing To me, that says that they are authorized to check what version I have installed. Yes, it says what I am "using," but it can reasonably be argued that if I have a default WinXP installation and connect to the internet, I am "using" all the default components of WinXP. If I have "auto_update324.dll" installed, that is the version of auto update that I am "using." The fact that I have selected the option of not actually downloading anything with the feature doesn't mean that I'm not "using" that version. BTW does the text next to the checkbox say "Don't download updates" with auto update, or does it say "Don't look for componenets that need to be updated"? These are two legally distinct things. Finally, I still think the larger point of this article was simply to point out to people the latest in a trend of license terms that, if valid, are apparently incompatible with many organizations' other contractual obligations. If your company's standard contract describes a secure environment on which you will host customer data, a EULA that explicitly allows Microsoft to update your software may contradict that description. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]
Post #28,062 by ben_tilly 2/11/02 3:03:06 PM Reply	You just drew a false inference There is no direct legal connection between the internet service and the right they want you to give up. Microsoft made a statement of fact and a separate statement of what you agree to. They did not connect them. Any connection you think is there is in your brain and won't stand up in court. They have internet services. You have a product installed that you agree they can inspect and modify at will. Your agreement is in no way contingent on your use of the internet services. The existence of those services may as well be the price of tea in China as far as what you agreed is concerned. Should Microsoft have a huge security patch to push out, that agreement would allow them to shove it down to you. Should Microsoft have a patch which causes a competitor's service to break, the only need they have to make up a reason for you to be upgraded automatically is publicity - you already accepted that they have the right to do that. Now they may not be using this agreement in any other way right now. But they have made repeated noises about the need to be able to force upgrades out at will. This has long been known as their long-term strategy. They want to be able to do this for the FUD value - being able to harm competitors at will is a nice feeling. But they are setting themselves up on all sides to be able to claim to be pushed into it for security reasons. And you, like a naive lamb, were willing to accept their comforting noises and docily lined up for the slaughter... Cheers, Ben
Post #28,071 by Brandioch 2/11/02 3:39:27 PM Reply	Thanks, Ben. :) I just ran that by my boss (with the link to the article) and he is now comletely in agreement that we will NOT be moving to XP. This is also the justification that will be handed out to anyone here who wants to go to XP. As a company, we cannot agree to the licensing terms that MS has for XP. :) happy dance
Post #28,078 by CRConrad 2/11/02 4:56:58 PM Reply	Indeed, one must not only read it, but read it as they do. Our $hillster writes: ...one must read the actual licence. Here's the relevant section: Internet-Based Services Components. The Product contains 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 Product and/or its components *that you are utilizing* and may provide upgradres or fixes to the Product that will be automatically downlaoded to your Workstation Computer. [my emphasis][and mine! - CRC] Now, that does not read to me like an unconditional reservation of right to inspect your computer; only a reservation of right to inspect the version of your OS and its components ~~should you choose to use the internet-based services~~.[My de-emphasis - CRC] There, I fixed it up a bit for you... HTH! :-) Seriously, though, what do you think "the Product" means? The Internet update "service"? No, that'd be called "the Service", not "the Product". The specific software bits that do the updating? No, they're called "components" here. It can only mean one thing: Windows as a whole. This is the license _for Windows_ we're talking about, right? You'll certainly be "utilizing" that, if you're getting a Windows license in the first place... And the way such licenses -- sorry, I mean: "licenses"! -- work, is that you agree to the whole shebang, or you don't have the right to use "the Product". No inspection right for them, no Windows for you. BTW, how do you differentiate "only ('only'!) a reservation of right to inspect the version of your OS" from an "unconditional reservation of right to inspect your computer", in actual practice? The user only hears his hard drive rattling a little, as files here and there upon it are inspected. Do you think Microsoft will throw up a dialog to tell you which directories, exactly, it is accessing? Even if they do, will you trust that it doesn't check any others? You can't very well set up your _operating system_ to be able to get at only some directories and not others, can you? There may well be nefarious doin's down the line, but I don't think this is the start of it. Re-read Andrew's typical schedule. This is precisely how it always begins. More likely from my experience is that MS will just rev the version of Windows, announce that "this is the subscription only version, suck it down" and USA, Inc. and UK plc will do just that. Exactly -- and when some few people there complain, everybody will say: "Hey, what are you whining about (now)?!? This was in the old XP license too, and you didn't complain then!" So you'd better -- complain now, that is. Oh, and one more thing: "We're such a big busy international company, that we really don't have the time to write a separate version of the license for each and every piddling little country" -- so you guys, bowing down to them as you predict, will buy us, the rest of the world, the same egregious license terms even before we're forced to start swallowing the subscription shit. Which will tend to reinforce that later, when they get around to us, as we then will have been "accepting" those terms for two whole product generations before. So no, don't acquiesce and put it aside with a "never mind that, it's not important now" -- because that'd only help make sure that it will be all the more important -- and inevitable! -- later on. Christian R. Conrad Of course, who am I to point fingers? I'm in the "Information Technology" business, prima facia evidence that there's bats in the bell tower. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=27764\|Andrew Grygus]

Welcome to IWETHEY!