Microsoft XP License Prohibits VNC 798
jhml writes: "Looks like the monopoly muscles are flexing. According to this article in Infoworld, the XP license prohibits products other than from Microsoft's from being used to remotely control an XP workstation. So ... guess they were having a little trouble with VNC being widely used?"
That doesn't mean VNC won't run. (Score:4, Informative)
What about PCAnywhere? (Score:5, Informative)
How is this affected?
Look, more FUD. (Score:3, Informative)
No one cares if you remote control it for administrative purposes.
rdesktop on *nix (Score:3, Informative)
rdesktop is available for *nix (open source)
and works via the web. plus it can do sound forwarding... I think the reason for this clause is that running both on one XP machine can cause problems (you get an error with rdesktop (microsoft official)).
Re:That doesn't mean VNC won't run. (Score:3, Informative)
moronic (Score:2, Informative)
Re:That doesn't mean VNC won't run. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No, the point is that NO ONE (Score:5, Informative)
Err not quite, there is one case although the precedent is fairly weak, the case was pretty narrow and was not appealled. The case involved a CDROM with telephone numbers on that would not be copyrightable as a mere aggregation of non copyright data. The court held that the shrinkwrap license established a contractual agreement not to copy the data, although the precedent is weak since there were other issues involved.
Also in the DeCSS case the existence of a shrinkwrap license was considered significant, although it was not decisive in that particular case.
That is beside the point in this case however since the clause would probably constitute an illegal restraint of trade if interpreted as in the article. Also the courts are much more willing to interpret clickwrap as establishing the type of copyright protections that they are used to in other media, than they are to allow the introduction of extraneous terms.
Slashdot is wrong as usual. (Score:5, Informative)
The application in trouble here is rdesktop, which allows you to connect a Windows Terminal Server or MetaFrame server over the RDP protocol.
MSFT doesn't want you to run MS apps on a server without owning a MSFT product. A CAL costs like $30, while a windows xp pro license is like 200.
I bet this sort of licensing restriction is illegal. I'm sure that IBM and Unisys had similar lines in their EULA's 20 years ago with mainframe systems to force companies to purchase expensive green screen terminals. Today people routinely connect with IBM 3270 emulators without any legal hassles.
Re:That doesn't mean VNC won't run. (Score:2, Informative)
TightVNC [tightvnc.com] can use jpeg encoding. good stuff. check it out.
on another note....wasn't this in the win2k license also?
Re:GPL Prohibits VNC (Score:5, Informative)
(Score: -1, incorrect, troll, flamebait.)
A) Screenshots are products of the program. They are "derived works" in the sense of Copyright law, but they are only derived in the sense that the .bmp files you produce from are derived works -- they are yours to do with as you please unless you were specificially forbidden from doing it by the license of the creator. Which doesn't apply here -- quoth the GPL [fsf.org]:
and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Since the screenshot isn't of the GNOME source, it's not covered by the GPL.
B) Even if the GPL did cover the output of the program, which it doesn't, use of VNC still wouldn't be prohibited. The GPL only mandates that you release source to people whom you have given binaries, and that only if they requested it -- if you're using VNC for personal use or internal to your company, no one will be requesting the source so you're fine. If you're allowing complete strangers VNC access, then you have greater problems than possible GPL violations.
FUD (Score:2, Informative)
In fact, neither did the author of the article on InfoWorld, nor the person interviewed by InfoWorld.
If you had, Microsoft would have replied, and I QUOTE:
"That portion of the EULA is only regarding products that allow multi-client Terminal Services, or Citrix [Metaframe] style access to the machine. It has nothing to do with VNC... there is nothing in the EULA that prevents remote access for administration..."
The quote is from a MS rep that I reached on the phone in about 5 minutes. Gee... that was hard, huh?
Of course, nobody really cares about the truth... enjoy your silly FUD.
This is going to cause problems MS (And I'm glad) (Score:2, Informative)
If only Ubi would port the server to linux I'd be a happy man.
Re:ssh ? (Score:3, Informative)
and with cmd.exe, I can manage a machine. You don't really think that I GUI log into 300 machines to install a patch, do you?
Re:No, the point is that NO ONE (Score:5, Informative)
has found a click thru license that has been upheld in court. They can demand all kinds of things but what the courts let them get away with is entirely a different matter
The case you're talking about is ProCD,Inc. vs. Zeidenberg [emory.edu], and your remarks are close but a bit off. Because white-page phonebook listings and similar "brute-force" database lists that are the product of hard work but no creativity are *not* protected by copyright (The Suprmeme Court's "Feist v. Rural Telephone" decision), ProCd was able to gather up phone books and create a national phone CD. Zeidenberg then took the CD, created a web interface to the data and was sued by ProCD.
Zeidenberg won in District Court, ProCd appealed to the 7th Circuit and lost there, and Zeidenberg did not appeal to the Supreme Court. In the 7th circuit ruling, Judge Easterbrook specifically reversed the trial court on the enforceability of shrinkwrap licenses. The way courts do things, this precedent is binding in all the District Courts in the 7th Circuit, but not elsewhere.
From a copyright perspective, this decision is ludicrous, because it in essence says that any publisher can slap a "contract" on something (book, cd, etc.) and thereby void any rights consumers otherwise might have, but until someone with bucks take the matter to the Supreme Court, we lack a definitive answer to the problem...
Re:The accessing machine must have a liscense (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft's XP license agreement says, "Except as otherwise permitted by the NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop features described below, you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display, or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer, nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display, or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless the Device has a separate license for the Product."
What microsoft wants here is everyone who uses XP to have a license for the device they are using XP on. So if your friend sets up a WinXP box with a VNC server, microsoft doesn't want you "enjoying the functionality and features of XP" from your win98 box, win2k box, linux box or your toaster. Microsoft feels that people may not upgrade from win98 to XP because they might use VNC to access a seperate, 3rd party XP machine. It's pretty gay, but unless you are running XP on all machines involved... you are breaking their license.
Don't buy XP, don't worry about.
The Point (Score:3, Informative)
The point I didn't make before was this:
That there is something fundamentally wrong with software companies telling people what they can and cannot do with their machines. I wonder when it was that MS went from being a distributer of software to being, well, a mafia-like organization. If you think about it, this is how a a mob works.
And I do run Linux at home, I was just bitching for the public comsumption
nahtanoj
They can claim anything they want.. (Score:4, Informative)
That still doesn't change the fact that their EULA is not legally enforcable.
The whole big deal with UCITA is to make these shrinkwrap/clickthrough licenses legally binding. Otherwise it's just bullshit.
Would they sue you over it? Maybe, but they probably won't win on purely legal grounds.
RDP client for UNIX (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.rdesktop.org [rdesktop.org] for more info.
Re:That doesn't mean VNC won't run. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:That doesn't mean VNC won't run. (Score:2, Informative)
Does anyone read the EULA? (Score:3, Informative)
Qua
* Installation and Use. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this EULA, you may install, use, access,display and run only one (1) copy of the SOFTWARE on the COMPUTER. The SOFTWARE may not be used by more than two (2) processors at any one time on the COMPUTER, unless a higher number is indicated on the Certificate of Authenticity. You may permit a maximum of ten (10) ("Connection Maximum") computers or other electronic devices (each a "Device") to connect to the COMPUTER to utilize the services of the SOFTWARE solely for File and Print services, Internet Information services, and remote access (including connection sharing and telephony services). The ten (10) Connection Maximum includes any indirect connections made through "multiplexing" or other software or hardware which pools or aggregates connections. Except as otherwise permitted below, you may not use the Device to use, access, display or run the SOFTWARE, the SOFTWARE's User Interface or other executable software residing on the COMPUTER.
* NetMeeting/Remote Assistance/Remote Desktop Features. SOFTWARE may contain NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop technologies that enable the SOFTWARE or other applications installed on the COMPUTER to be used remotely between two or more computers, even if the SOFTWARE or application is installed on only one COMPUTER. You may use NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop with all Microsoft products; provided however, use of these technologies with certain Microsoft products may require an additional license. For Microsoft and non-Microsoft products, you should consult the license agreement accompanying the applicable product or contact the applicable licensor to determine whether use of NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, or Remote Desktop is permitted without an additional license.
Re:That doesn't mean VNC won't run. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Is this being totally misinterpreted? (Score:3, Informative)
Services also typically run as different users, as do system processes such as winlogon.exe, svchost.exe, csrss.exe and mstask.exe. As others have pointed out, Terminal Services also allows multiple users to run programs with their own privilages. In fact, Windows NT, 2K, and XP allow finer-grained control of processes, threads, and objects than Unix does. What XP allows is an easy way for multiple users to have their own individual desktops available at the same time (and their own Explorer process running on their appropriate desktop). Download Process Explorer from System Internals [sysinternals.com] to see how processes under NT work.
Re:That doesn't mean VNC won't run. (Score:3, Informative)
I can get near realtime response on a 33.6 modem connection (and that kiddies is all you can get from 56K modems without having a T1 line and a $12,000 modem rack at the other end.) It's faster , better and you can even increase the jpeg compression so high that you get insanely fast comms with some very tolerable artifacting. (you can read it but most graphics have the wierd over-compressed look to them.)
and best of all VNC/TightVNC is free, open source, and compatable witha huge range of computers and platforms... something that microsoft has yet to have the technology to accomplish.
Nope, they tried to shovel that MS solution down our throats here at corperate... It was mysteriously was deleted, and TightVNC is used instead... (Wonderful how the IS/IT policy is written so that any freeware and Open Source is allowed in the company.... and how if they try to complain I just ask why it says evaluation copy- please register on some of the "tool apps
" they sent us and isn't that a violation of copyright and I should call the BSA?
The weenies at deployment and the NOC shut up quite quickly when threatened with the BSA.... See they are useful!
VNC is not restricted, in my interpretation (Score:4, Informative)
I don't think that VNC is the issue here, because the EULA seems to be prohibiting running multiple instances of a program on separate displays. This is not what VNC is on the Windows platform: VNC is simply showing one instance on multiple displays.
In this sense, VNC is no different than having a monitor splitter (like stores often have to showcase their monitor selection, being driven by one computer running XP).
I have to wonder: is Microsoft's next tactic going to be requiring a separate license for each pair of EYES viewing their product?
Re:The accessing machine must have a liscense (Score:3, Informative)
The unless concerns what licenses the "Device" has. Since the term "Device" is used both before and after the nor, it is unclear whether the sentance is to be parsed (A) nor (B unless C) or ((A) nor (B)) unless C. I would argue that the second construction is the correct on. If they did not want the unless to apply to A, they could have written to as two different sentances.
Re:This is for "Citrix like" applications. (Score:3, Informative)
This was right after NT 4.0, and MS was just starting to really turn nasty - everybody was still talking about DR-DOS and the WP/Word "one version off" incompatability, and the vaporware Windows was still seen as an funny accident that happened to really work in MS's favor, and OS/2 was still an option.
--
Evan
Re:ssh ? (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
C:\>shutdown
Usage: shutdown [-i | -l | -s | -r | -a] [-f] [-m \\computername] [-t xx] [-c "c
omment"] [-d up:xx:yy]
No args Display this message (same as -?)
-i Display GUI interface, must be the first option
-l Log off (cannot be used with -m option)
-s Shutdown the computer
-r Shutdown and restart the computer
-a Abort a system shutdown
-m \\computername Remote computer to shutdown/restart/abort
-t xx Set timeout for shutdown to xx seconds
-c "comment" Shutdown comment (maximum of 127 characters)
-f Forces running applications to close without warning
-d [u][p]:xx:yy The reason code for the shutdown
u is the user code
p is a planned shutdown code
xx is the major reason code (positive integer less than 256)
yy is the minor reason code (positive integer less than 65536)
Re:The accessing machine must have a liscense (Score:2, Informative)
I've been using XP since beta 2 (anyone remember that? quite an experience) and have been using remote desktop the entire time. At school, we have a collection of 2k and NT machines, and a bunch of imacs. I have many programs installed at home that I don't have at school. When I need them, I sit at any of the computers, go to a web page hosted on IIS on the XP machine at home which loads up an activex version of the client. Suddenly, I'm at my home computer, running homesite or whatever. Even my visual styles and sound come through.
Now this is cool, but I can do this with VNC. What coolest part of Remote Desktop is actually disabled in XP Pro and Home for the very reasons that this license exists. In Windows 2000 Server I can have 20 clients, running whatever version of windows, or even Windows CE (or unix with 3rd party stuff) connecting to the server, each running their own instance of windows and applications, invisible to each other. But in order to do that, I have to have 20 licenses. As I recall, they're not full windows licenses, but Terminal Client Licenses. Microsoft is doing the exact same thing with XP client. I think this actually becomes a non-issue since the feature is disabled anyway, this just prevents 3-rd party programs from enabling it. Longhorn, supposedly, will have it enabled, so you can have multiple simultaneous sessions on one xp client computer.
Sorry this post is getting so long, but here's my conclusion. I don't think this license is preventing, or attempting to prevent the use of VNC or pcanywhere. It is trying to prevent the use of and XP client (pro or home version) as an application server. The functionality is essentially there, though disabled, and Microsoft would much rather have you buy the server version. Just like IIS is availiable, but crippled, in the client versions. If you're going to use the computer as a server, buy the server OS, according to MS.
In other words, this isn't an attack on VNC, it's an attack on people buying the wrong os verison.