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)
Re:That doesn't mean VNC won't run. (Score:2, Insightful)
I used it to control a buddy's computer and set up the software to allow him to take over my machine in turn. I had no problems getting it running - other than doing the IP forwarding thing on my firewall.
I understand it works for all sort of machines, too. Take that microsoft terminal server!!!!
The fact that it's free, performs the same functionality as TS but works on multiple platform means that it totally rules.
anyway....
J:)
Re:That doesn't mean VNC won't run. (Score:2)
You mean remote assistance?
Assuming you do, remote assistance is much more efficient than VNC; instead of regularly sending JPEGs, like VNC, the remote assistance program simply can send the window styles, etc. to the other computer, the location of the windows, and the description of the contents, and after that it only has to send changes in things like window location, window size, etc.
If only it would work on other platforms.... (which would be extremely hard to do, esp with the huge amount of window managers out there)
On an unrelated note, I saw XP ads all over that webpage
Re:That doesn't mean VNC won't run. (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe -- but the point of the discussion is whether you're even allowed to use something else.
Microsoft's remote assistance might be better than VNC -- but they should have no right to tell users that they can't use VNC. If you pay for XP (or get it preloaded...) you should be able to use it any way you choose.
I do wonder if that clause in the license was meant to prevent using VNC, or if it was an attempt to prevent multiple users from accessing a single Microsoft box and running multiple instances of Office or something like that. Perhaps the author of the original story should have contacted M$ and asked what their take was on that. I'm sure that they would likely have disavowed that they were trying to prevent using VNC in conjuntion with XP. (I doubt they could enforce it anyway...)
No, the point is that NO ONE (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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:That doesn't mean VNC won't run. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm thinking, if microsoft really didn't want VNC to be used, why not do some programming voodoo to make it crash or something?
I think the end user license is kind of silly in forbidding software a user can run. I think its more that microsoft won't support XP configurations running VNC, not that they want to ban people from using it. Or maybe they do, in favor of their built in remote admin stuff.
I can think of an analogy of someone buying a car, and reading the owners manual which says "please only use 'GM/Ford/your car company's name here' oil filters when changing oil, or this company's spark plugs when doing a tune up"
Although I think its kind of silly, VNC is incredibly useful, even over slow dial up connections.
Re:That doesn't mean VNC won't run. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:That doesn't mean VNC won't run. (Score:3, Informative)
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!
Re:That doesn't mean VNC won't run. (Score:3, Interesting)
Just ssh to the host and run your app. If your feeling really nifty , do a X
and run the entire desktop remotely
Re:That doesn't mean VNC won't run. (Score:4, Insightful)
When I worked in New Hamphire, we had power outages quite often, but the server had a UPS. Users could continue to edit the same documents or even continue debugging after the power was restored.
The server was running Linux, the clients were both Linux and Windows based.
Re:That doesn't mean VNC won't run. (Score:3, Informative)
Not necessarily anti-VNC... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not necessarily anti-VNC... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not necessarily anti-VNC... (Score:5, Funny)
For some reason, I read this and imagined a sign outside of a bank entrance: "By entering this bank, you agree not to steal our money."
Re:Not necessarily anti-VNC... (Score:3, Insightful)
If Mr. Rich Lately walked through the unlocked front door of a bank at midnight, strolled down the stairs, opened the vault (which has no locks) and made off with the life savings of a few thousand people, the bank could not just say "Well it's not our fault, it's illegal to steal, after all."
Re:Not necessarily anti-VNC... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not necessarily anti-VNC... (Score:3, Interesting)
How often was MS sued?
Just naive or stupid? (Re:That doesn't mean VNC..) (Score:5, Insightful)
Now it's "no big deal, VNC runs just fine".
In 2 years when the next version comes out and VNC won't run anymore it's "no big deal, VNC wasn't legal anyway, it should not run"
It's the same with WPA:
Now: "No big deal, it works fine"
In 2 years: "Subscription is great because you don't get any WPA-codes for unsupported versions anymore anyway."
No difference... (Score:4, Funny)
ssh ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:ssh ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Jeremy
Re:ssh ? (Score:3, Funny)
- A.P.
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:ssh ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Right now BIOS settings, and the POST bootup stuff only go to the video device. That needs to be modified to redirect to a serial console. Right now to do this, you need to use a add-on board such as Compaq's Remote Insight.
This new hardware design spec would also benefit x86 Unices.
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:ssh ? (Score:4, Insightful)
"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."
this is really stretching it, but say you've got a dual boot machine with linux/XP on it. by reading this license you can't boot to linux and remotely run any software on the box. maybe "Workstation computer" is defined someplace else in the license to only include that area of the computer with the xp install, but i'm not counting on it.
Re:ssh ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:ssh ? (Score:3, Interesting)
They don't want you to use workstations as servers (Score:5, Insightful)
Notice that last part, where they prohibit running the windows user interface remotely on a machine that is NOT licensed for windows. What they want to prevent is using workstation licenses to set up a "windows server", which could let you run windows programs from a non-windows machine.
This is to keep people from buying a small number of windows licenses and putting a few machines running VNC or the like in the server room, to run those few windows applications that the company hasn't been weaned from yet.
Again they're monopolizing - this time by trying to block migration paths from windows to non-windows shops.
Read more closely (Score:3, Insightful)
this is really stretching it, but say you've got a dual boot machine with linux/XP on it. by reading this license you can't boot to linux and remotely run any software on the box.
Wrong, at least going by the quote above--note how it says "you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display, or run . . ." Since "Product" presumably refers to Windows, the clause doesn't apply while you're running Linux. (It might, on the other hand, apply if you had an emulator running Linux under Windows.)
VNC vs. Remote Desktop (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyway, remote desktop runs much better than VNC, and is sure a lot better than a screen capture... oh well. Besides, with VNC can you play a CD on the remote computer and listen to it at your local machine? =]
Re:VNC vs. Remote Desktop (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft wrote support for it right into the OS.
When Microsoft wants to, they can beat any program by using resources (source code) that nobody else has.
Microsoft is *always* behind the curve with features.. they wait until something is popular, is proven in the marketplace... then copy it and do whatever they can to destroy the company/team that developed it.
If I hear Gates or Balmer mention 'innovate' one more time.. I'm going to loose my lunch. Do they really belive that is what they do? Or do they laugh themselves to teh bank on the way back from the courtroom? Err, their videotapes do anyway...
Re:VNC vs. Remote Desktop (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, but you have to turn the volume way up
Finally, an end to the trojan problem! (Score:5, Funny)
Well, I guess Microsoft finally figured out how to take care of the thousands of trojans out there... Just forbid them in the EULA, and surely they'll all go away
Your windows license only valid with... (Score:3, Insightful)
Your Windows software License is only valid for use with the following list of MS-approved software programs...
"Well, I guess Microsoft finally figured out how to take care of the thousands of trojans out there... Just forbid them in the EULA, and surely they'll all go away
No, it's not. It simply means that every computer that has a trojan on it suddenly is out of license for Windows.
Since so many windows PC's out there _are_ trojaned (I still get minda scans in my firewall logs), that means that they can tell all these people to buy pay them a lot of damages, because the computer owners have committed breach of contract by installing the trojan on their computer.
So, Microsoft will not scan the Internet itself for port 31337 (backorifice) and others, and when it finds a trojan, they can send in the troops...
Actually, they can just bundle VNC with the next IEploder or outlook 'security update', making everybody who installs it out-of-license. They could then also claim billions more tax deductions to piracy losses.
Re:Finally, an end to the trojan problem! (Score:5, Funny)
OMG! Microsoft is abusing their monopoly to expand into the trojan market! Pretty soon there's be no option except Microsoft brand trojans!
-
Easy fix (Score:5, Interesting)
They won't dare fight you on this, because if they win, it would basically invalidate the whole EULA concept: if a click can be considered to be agreement, so can a signature for a certified letter...
What about PCAnywhere? (Score:5, Informative)
How is this affected?
Re:What about PCAnywhere? (Score:2)
Re:What about PCAnywhere? (Score:5, Interesting)
At the XP rollout I asked (twice, once where the entire audience could hear it) about licensing vs "As a guest using remote assistance, you are able to run anything on the remote system"... frex, Word. But Word's current license is PER USER, *not* PER SEAT. (One computer, one copy of Word, 6 *possible* users == you are now required to have 6 licenses -- possibly 7 if your M$Office install was OEM, since in some confused way it appears that sometimes the computer itself is regarded as a user.)
The M$ guy quite deliberately danced all around but never answered my question.
Draw your own conclusions.
Look, more FUD. (Score:3, Informative)
No one cares if you remote control it for administrative purposes.
Re:Look, more FUD. (Score:5, Interesting)
The way I read this is that this prohibits software from remotely driving the computer - whether it is for serving applications or for administrative purposes.
I don't think it is even possible to set up VNC to be used on the Windows platform to set up application sharing -- the VNC instance is tied to the desktop -- IMHO that means it is only good for a single user and I don't see why it matters whether that single user is at the KB on the console or a remote console.
I also agree with an earlier poster -- for the Windows platform, the Terminal Services client is *FAR* superior to VNC -- of course it is -- VNC works by sending bitmaps across the pipe -- the terminal services client can send API calls -- same principle as behind Xwindows.
I often like to install both as there has been times when Terminal services has croaked but VNC hasn't and vice-versa.
Re:Look, more FUD. (Score:5, Insightful)
I also agree with an earlier poster -- for the Windows platform, the Terminal Services client is *FAR* superior to VNC -- of course it is -- VNC works by sending bitmaps across the pipe -- the terminal services client can send API calls -- same principle as behind Xwindows.
Nonsense!! With Palm VNC I can take over my desktop with my Kyocera Smartphone. Can you give me a Windows Terminal services client that runs on a palm pilot? There are VNC clients and servers for a large variety of platforms. What do you think are the chances that MS will permit interoperability with Linux (which they've called THE major threat to Windows) or with PalmOS (the major competitor to WinCE)?
Window Terminal Services are only far superior if you've already been assimilated. Even if I am sitting in front of a Windows machine, a Terminal Services client won't help me take over one of my Linux boxes. Terminal Services is mostly just good for locking me into Windows. No thanks.
Adrian
RDP client for UNIX (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.rdesktop.org [rdesktop.org] for more info.
Intent vs Wording (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? Does the license make an exception for "administrative purposes"? The quoted portion in the article certainly doesn't point to one.
It might shock you and other readers, but a license in based on the wording of that license. The letter of the law, as it were. Not on any individual's interpretation of its intent.
Granted, you wouldn't be alone. It wouldn't be the first time an astute reader pointed out a particularly nasty bit of licensing, the issue was published, a company experienced backlash and then promptly assigned their PR people to profess confusion over the issue as the license is reworded and its new version published. Even professionals don't always grasp what their legal / licensing team is up to.
Of course, sometimes they do. And then the end user / organization is forced to deal with the license. Or legal action.
This is for "Citrix like" applications. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is for "Citrix like" applications. (Score:3, Interesting)
50 people on 50 Linux machines using 50 VNC clients connected to 1 Windows VNC server does not result in 50 people remotely running their own instance of Windows apps. Instead, they'll all be sharing the same mouse/kb cursor, and the same processes.
It would be nothing short of chaos... why does this need to be regulated again?
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:This is for "Citrix like" applications. (Score:5, Insightful)
In any case, what matters is not whether VNC lets you do this but that Microsoft tries to impose such restrictions. It's just another indication of how much they are trying to milk and control their customers. Any rational buyer should run from that kind of company, and this should be added to the long list of anticompetitive practices to be investigated.
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)).
The accessing machine must have a liscense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The accessing machine must have a liscense (Score:3, Insightful)
But what I highligted implies you can't do VNC either.
My interpretation of what it this says "You can access the system remotely using only MS supplied tools if you have enough licenses."
Re:The accessing machine must have a liscense (Score:4, Insightful)
But everyone seems to be missing the important problem with the license. The real problem with the license is that certain MS products get a free ride and get priviledges that competing products do not.
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: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.
Re:The accessing machine must have a liscense (Score:3, Insightful)
Meaningless rabid lawyerese. Taken literally (and how else would you take a literal license?) and given that WinXP is licensed according to what's inside the box, it follows that you can't use a monitor to display WinXP unless the monitor has a separe license.
If you want to argue that a monitor is not a "Device" whereas (e.g.) a remote laptop is, then consider one of those funky Phillips 802.11b touchscreen monitors with a whack of built in functionality, regardless of whether it's connected to a box or not. Then you draw the line between what's a Device and what isn't. Remember to future proof your definition to include stuff that hasn't been invented yet.
Microsoft really needs to run this stuff through a cluechecker before leaving themselves open to this kind of ridicule. It's folly to write a license that's impossible to fully comply with, then get all prissy when people choose to ignore it as a whole.
So no cygwin then? (Score:2, Redundant)
Presumably this would include a telnet/ssh daemon and the cygwin installation needed to make them useful? Cygwin is the life blood of unixen trapped in a windows world - what now if the pointy haired ones 'upgrade' to XP?
Dave
moronic (Score:2, Informative)
2-Borg Limit (Score:5, Funny)
Time to find something non-Microsoft to post before the whole page gets assimilated.
Re:2-Borg Limit (Score:3)
Netscape (Score:5, Troll)
Re:Netscape (Score:5, Interesting)
By excluding previously allowed software on their systems, Microsoft are extending their monopoly over the software that runs on their system.
It is most likely that this part of the EULA would be overturned in a court ruling as being unreasonable.
In any company, to comply with the license, they must use a Microsoft remote terminal application. This is restriction of business (or product tying), as companies will comply with the license of course!)
Someone should point this out to the 9 states and the DOJ as evidence that Microsoft are *continuing* to act in a predatory monopolistic manner, and that harsh terms need to be applied in order to allow true competition in the OS and application market.
Misinterpretation? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's hard to tell without the context of the quotation, but I would assume 'the Product' to refer to Windows XP or Remote Desktop. The emphasis also seems to be on "unless the Device has a separate license for the Product.". That seems to me to have a significant different implication than we are led to believe by the article. Does anyone have definitions for 'The Product' and 'the Device' from the terms of the license agreement?
I still don't get this: (Score:4, Interesting)
That, because we are running their software, this means that they own the computer it runs on. What else could the deal with the "registered programs" and such be about? I own the damn network card, so doesn't that mean I can choose how to use it? It's the same ownership/license debate.
I sick of it all...
Nahtanoj
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
A sure sign of despiration... (Score:5, Funny)
Next up, and likely to be in Windows TX (Total eXtortion):
- You may not use any fax package other than from microsoft to send faxes from Windows.
- You may not use any compiler other than c# to compile software for Windows.
- Tou may not use any internet tools that were compiled without
- You may not use any installer tools other than from Microsoft to package software for Windows.
- You may not read web sites with any software other than from Microsoft. (Oops, already did that one.)
- You may not read Slashdot from a Microsoft Browser.
I must say, I am starting to enjoy the sheer humor factor that Microsoft provides. While not yet having been punished for behaving in a monopolistic way, Microsoft goes out of their way to make sure everyone knows just how wide thei are willing to swing their axe.
-Chris
Re:A sure sign of despiration... (Score:3, Insightful)
PS. As I've said 100 times, you can use VNC, Citrix, or ANY desktop/application sharing program on XP - you just need licenses for each desktop session.
Re:A sure sign of despiration... (Score:4, Insightful)
You show me a way to get 15 people using the same non-server XP PC at the same time, each doing whatever they want, and I'll acknowledge that each of those 15 could justifiably need an individual license.
While only one can use it simultaneously, though, the point becomes ridiculous. I mean, are they seriously suggesting that people will run a small bunch of XP boxes then VNC into them from Linux terminals, dancing round until they find a free XP box? And, even if they did, why is this philosophically different from shared computer labs / hotdesking / pool laptops?
This is monopolist extortion, pure and simple.
Both VNC server and client work perfectly well (Score:3, Funny)
I have no tolerance for this kind of invasiveness on how I use my computer and I sincerely hope Microsoft chokes itself on these crappy EULA restrictions. Stunts like these make me so mad... next thing you know, the BSA is going to start suing people for NOT using Microsoft Word.
Mac, here I come. I'm saving for one starting today.
An Observation (Score:3, Interesting)
The point I want to raise is this: VNC is an innocuous program. It's not Napster or Morpheus, which I could see Microsoft actually blocking. It's instead something you throw on a box to make your life as an admin easier. In short, VNC is about the
My question: Windows XP has been out there for what, a year? It took people that long to realize that the license agreement disallows the use of VNC? How much longer is it going to be before someone finds the clause that disallows the use of OpenOffice? If such a clause existed, would people be able to find it and realize its implications? Furthermore, how much longer is it going to be before network admins decide that they'd rather not use an operating system where they don't even have any idea what applications they are allowed to run on it? Again, VNC is an extremely common and handy tool, it seemed like the LAST app MS would disallow. If VNC is disallowed, what's next?
-inq
Unenforcable (Score:3, Insightful)
We already know that there are whole clauses in licenses that are unenforcable - there are certain rights you can't give up in a contract, certain types of liability that a manufacturer can't disclaim. If I make an unsafe product I can still be held accountable even though the license disclaimed all liability. How is this different? The contract can't dictate whether you can use it with other people's software.. that's your own decision.
Imagine if the BSA was allowed to raid your office and enforce 'interoperability!' MS ends up suing you because you ran VNC on XP desktops, Oracle sues you because there was an SQL Server on the same machine as Oracle, and Netscape sues you because they're angry at the world!
Typical. (Score:5, Interesting)
The bold text implies that a Windows 98 license would be required, for example, on the BSD machine running a BSD client connecting to a Windows 98 desktop.
The Windows 2000 EULA is more blunt:
Good thing that except for those unfortunates who live in UCITA states, these clauses are likely to mean dick.
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:Slashdot is wrong as usual. (Score:3, Interesting)
But it's all irrelevant now: the five-year contract was signed in 1997 and expires this year. Therefore, Citrix is scheduled to die this year. Rest assured that all of the value add that Citrix provides will now be built into the system by Microsoft.
That includes clients for non Windows platforms. It's a downright draconian licensing model: for each client connecting to Terminal Services, you have to buy a Client Access License, a Terminal Services Client Access License (yes, they're two different things), a Citrix license (if you're using Citrix), and... if you're using a non-Microsoft operating system, or a Microsoft operating system older than the one running on the Terminal Services host... you also have to buy a Windows [2000] Workstation license!
Add up all that free money for Microsoft and it doesn't really matter what OS you're connecting from.
Predictable and not impresssive anymore (Score:5, Interesting)
Story reminds me on time when I needed to purchase Terminal server. With all the licenses needed (you need WinNT + client licenses + terminal server, but funny is that client side is even more expensive because every client needs Win98 license + WinNT full license + Terminal server access license) I just smiled my self and felt quite happy about my decision to move bussines to Linux.
I don't know, but that makes accessing WinXP trough SSH illegal too. But where is some Microsoft WinXP SSH client.
It might came a bit out off topic, but story reminds me on Windows license stickers, that must be sticked on every computer that you sell Windows with. I sell only well designed and expensive cases (otherwise I rather avoid that job), this could break their level of class. It's like some Ferrari reseller would put a sticker on the car he just sold, but to get back. There has come to dispue about this topic and dispute was over the moment I asked for damage covering. You can't sell classy PC case with stickers on it. This just isn't way to do bussines, it's more like cow branding to which ranch do they belong.
Now in these days of XP licensing, I can't say I haven't expected something like that. Nobody can say that without a lie, even the toughest Microsoft fans.
To get a little more out off topic (but with a point again). Interesting is how they protect their rights. And what kind of material do they use to lower quality of other products. Recentlly I recived two CD-s for Windows 2000 resellers "How to compete with Linux environment". I don't think that I've ever read this many "bullshit" in my life as I've reada in that material. Just to cover some points (Comparing Win2000AdvSrv with Redhat 6.0, while document is dated late 2001, Linux has no 1000Mbit eth support, Linux has no VPN support, Linux has no PPP dialer, etc, while other file (dated few days in difference) comparing Samba with Win2000 says that weak point of Samba 2.2 is that it doesn't come preinstalled on releases prior to 7.2, so you must set it up on your own...).
This (sad) reality (unfortunatelly) shows how over protective (no body count and no regrets) thay are. It seems like they'll soon lack of new enemies and they want their customers to become ones. Now with that legal issue about remote control, they've just made competition alias Citrix harder job to copete with their solutions. It wouldn't surprise me if the next step would be selling licenses for use of non-Microsoft software. As how this software is not confirmed by Microsoft and they've got to approve it so this license would be just covering their expenses to test that software. It's long since they've shown that they're interested in money and not in users benefits.
I know the last claim is off course missed one. But as current events are evolving... Who knows
bout the article let's just say "Predictable and not impresssive anymore"
Is this being totally misinterpreted? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is taken out of context, but I'm assuming 'Product' is referring to XP. It doesn't say you can't run VNC, it says that there needs to be a seperate license of XP for the client. That is bogus for VNC users, but if you look a little closer at the wording, I'm not sure they exactly intended to wipe out VNC. It sounds like they're saying 'you have to be using XP to control XP', but that's only true if this agreement is for the home edition of XP. Again, this was taken out of context, but I can't help but wonder if this was taken from the Corporate version of XP's agreement.
If that's the case, suddenly it makes more sense. What MS is trying to do is get companies to buy the XP Enterprise Edition (at least I assume there's a version like that...) that has 25 client licenses. In which case, using PC Anywhere to connect to that product would require an extra license. This sounds shitty unless you think about it some more. Computers are getting more powerful, right? So it gets to a point where you could have one computer powerful enough to perform a number of people's needs, all you'd need is a terminal to connect to it.
Let me tell you about an interesting feature that XP has that the rest of the Windows line doesn't: It can have multiple users running programs at the same time. Unix has done this for ages, but XP finally supports this. You can log in as yourself, run a program, then log in as somebody else and run a program there too. In effect, both your programs are still running. A company looking to save a few bucks could make a central computer running XP and hack a version of VNC to divvy up incoming connections into different users. Then they build a bunch of Linux machines using VNC that connect to this server and make it look like a Windows desktop. They could buy exactly one copy of Office and support a whole office with that license. This would be harder to do with Win2K, but it seems like it'd be fairly easy with XP. I think MS's license is saying that you can't do this.
As a side effect, VNC and PC Anywhere are technically unable to be used legitimately, unless MS specificially says it's ok. They probably have done that with PCAnywhere (there's hints to that effect on Symantec's site), but VNC probably won't be since it's open source.
Alot of people are interpreting this line of text as an attempt to maintain a monopoly, or to wipe out VNC or something like that, but that really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If MS really didn't like remote computing, then by default all they'd have to do is disable the common ports used for it. I think it's more likely they're trying to prevent people from doing something that hasn't been attempted yet.
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:Is this being totally misinterpreted? (Score:3, Insightful)
In this industry, that particular activity is usually called innovation.
This is one of the threats Lessig points to in Future of Ideas; the use of private law (licensing) to prevent innovation by new entrants to the industry.
Re:moderators, do your job!! (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see why you want me modded down, doesn't sound like you read my post at all.
Kinda makes sense... if curiously worded. (Score:4, Insightful)
However, that part of the license is really strangely worded. It can be read much more broadly than that, effectively forbidding, say, SSH clients connecting to an SSH server on the XP server box and running things there, or any other form of non-MS-client based networking. I wonder if they have something in mind. Do
Unix vendors have tried this for years... (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone who has used the major vendors Unix offerings has been hit by some version of "per user" licensing before. Those who have seen this conclude they are all broken.
Many unix vendors only allow 2 "users" to be loged in at once in default installs. Of course, if you install software that doesn't write to utmp (be that an SSH server, or a web server, or any number of other things) then the limit doesn't apply. The number of ways around this are numerous, and most don't even violate the license.
Microsoft, finally getting with the program, has a similar problem. Their software can finally support multiple users and applications in a reasonable way. They realize, rightfully so, that one big honkin machine, running the same software, can serve hundreds of users. Rather than hundreds of machines, each with a license.
This is a prime example of "value based pricing". I don't think the concept is bad, but many of the implementations are, well, bad. I'm afraid that there will never be a good solution to this problem.
The most fair thing I can come up with is to charge a business per user. Period. If those users all log into a single computer, or each have their own, the fee should be the same. Thus companies can decide to be client server, with a PC on every desk, or mainframe like, with a big server or two and dumb terminals, all at the same cost. In the end, the cost to the software company to develop both is fairly similar, and having the price be the same prevents killing one market in favor of another.
I feel microsoft's wording is overly restrictive here, but at the same time there are more than a few companies who would only buy one copy of {Windows, Office, Linux, Photoshop, etc} if they could find a way to get away with it, including spending a pile of cash on a central server. It's really sad that people won't pay for good software.
Makes me laugh (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm tired of hearing people bitch about Windows. Linux is a better OS. You have no excuse. Go and buy RedHat and stop bitching about the MS EULA.
It reminds me of all those people who bitch about voting because we have a "two party system" and then on election day, they still vote for democrats or republicans. Either your part of the problem or the solution.
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.
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.
I'm confused (Score:3, Insightful)
So, are you agreeing or disagreeing with the story?
TWW
Old news (Score:3, Interesting)
But who cares? I installed VNC on XP anyway and it works great (never could make the original "remote control" work because it needs another XP system).
My Major Issue (Score:4, Insightful)
Atleast with the GPL et al I can choose not to install it.
This makes sense -- it's NOT a arbitrary (Score:3, Interesting)
The original market for stuff like Citrix WinView and WinFrame was where people really were remote; they were at their house connecting with a modem or at a satellite office connected to HQ via a leased line or whatever, and they needed some way to run applications that use a lot of network bandwidth (e.g. database stuff) with decent performance in spite of having a slow pipe. So you take the X11 type approach, and run the app on a machine with a fast pipe, and just use the slow pipe for the user interface.
I set up a few such beasties for clients and they were happy. Then I heard that Microsoft was doing "the Borg thing" to kill Citrix, and I couldn't figure it out at first. Why? It's not like there was some MS-only alternative where MS would make more money (except on the app server software) and even WinFrame itself only ran on NT (unlike WinView, which was Citrix was phasing out anyway), so Microsoft still got to, as Don Fanucci might say, "wet their beak." It didn't make sense to me at first. But, as usual, I was being naive and assuming the Microsoft just wanted money, when really their motivations were more sinister. Well, maybe that's going too far.. it's just that Microsoft people were really thinking about long-term consequences.
The reason WinFrame and VNC and PCAnywhere need to be killed, is that there's too much potential for non-Microsoft clients (well, it's more than merely potential, in the case of VNC). This is important, because there are very few reasons that a user actually needs to use Microsoft Windows -- it's usually just a few key apps that the users are locked into. Users could use things like WinFrame or VNC even when there isn't a slow pipe. You can have a whole office using a single app server for their Microsoft legacy stuff (it's not like MS Word is CPU-bound; a single box could service a lot of users), and then the users can run whatever platform they damn well want to. Thus, any remote access product that uses an open protocol, is potentially a migration tool and a threat to Windows lock-in.
WinFrame ISA protocol was never opened, but they did apparently license it. In the mid-late 90s we had some users on WinView (an earlier version of WinFrame that ran on OS/2 instead of NT), and I bought a Macintosh program (which I ran under emulation on my Amiga :-) which let me
dial into clients' app servers from home, so I could do some maintenance and
cleanup stuff after hours when users didn't have files open. Cross-platform
paradise! ;-)
VNC is even worse, because it's been ported to everything. It really might be feasible to have a single MS box for legacy stuff, and a whole office full of Macs or Linux boxes. And once users try non-Microsoft stuff, they don't want to go back. From Microsoft's point of view, this stuff really needs to be crushed before it gets popular.
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?
What about commercial remote control software? (Score:3, Interesting)
As for the agrument posed in the licensing agreement;
"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."
From what I can understand, this licensing agreement limits the use of Windows XP to only one monitor/machine. Obviously you can't install Windows XP on other machines without a license, but this seems to say you cannot run any aspect of Windows XP from a remote computer, even though you are the proper owner and sole user of the software. What about using telnet to ping your Windows XP machine? Is that illegal? I would like to see this challenged because I don't know if it is really going to hold up in court. In a sense, Remote Access software, or VNC, lets you view your Windows XP machine using a different monitor. That's all it really is. No one can use the Windows XP box while you are remotely connected to it. There is still only one desktop available for use at any given time.
This seems pretty anti-competitive to me.
Re:My Experience With Linux (Score:2, Troll)
You say 8 half-working text editors? vi and other console editors are not half-working, and are very useful when you can't afford a remote graphical session, or any other situation where a GUI is not possible or unecessary. As for GUI text editors, gedit, kedit and kwrite all beat notepad hands down. I don't see notepad with features for highlighting based on the language you are saving the text document as. How can you possibly say that notepad beats these common text editors in linux?
You obviously haven't tried linux properly at all. Consider this hypothetical situation - someone is brought up for 20 years using only linux (never heard of windows) in it's current form (KDE 2.2.2, etc). Then they hear about this whizbang operating system called Windows. They decide to give it a whirl as you just did. I'm sure that 15 minutes into the session they would be frustrated when they:
Can you see what is wrong in this example? First of all, this hypothetical person used it for only 15 minutes, not enough time for a full evaluation. Also, this person had grown up using something different, so they favored all the pet features and benefits of their own operating system, while completely missing the good features of the rival operating system. Since they had grown up with this operating system, it's in their mind of how computers should work.
So, until you give it a proper try, it will remain obvious that you don't know what you are talking about.
Re:As a wise man once said (Score:3, Insightful)
I've always thought it funny that people get so damn surprised that Microsoft puts draconian restrictions like this into every new Windows EULA. You know they're going to do it, so why do you plunk your money down until you can find a copy of their EULA to review?
Besides, the BSA, which is the only organization that gives a damn and has the clout to go after people violating software licenses, won't go after you unless you're a business, or are dealing/distributing software. Microsoft/BSA couldn't care less if Joe Bob computer user manages their Windows machine with VNC. They do it so they can force corporations to buy more Microsoft software to manage their machines, and drive out any other competitors. Can you say "monopoly building"? I thought you could.
Re:As a wise man once said (Score:3, Interesting)
I've always thought it's funny you don't get to accept or decline the EULA until AFTER you plunk down your money for it...
Actually, this is exactly why ELUAs are not usually binding. When you pick up the box, take it to the counter, and pay your money, you have completed a contract. The vendor cannot unilaterally change the terms of that contract by surprising you with a piece of paper with additional terms on the inside.
Actually, the notion of the ELUAs as they are typically attempted by MicroSoft and such are disturbing to me beyond their mere illegality. The idea of ambushing the buyer with additional terms on the contract after the user has already paid for the product is morally repugnant. MicroSoft (along with other vendors) appear to believe that ELUAs should have some force of law, even if the courts know better. If ELUAs were legally binding, wouldn't this ambush tactic be a kind of fraud? How can anyone with a personal sense of honor or any kind of sense of ethics at all perpetrate such a fraud? The very notion of an ELUA hidden from the buyer at the time of purchase with terms as draconian as we keep hearing about from MS speaks volumns of the moral degeneracy that must be rampant at MicroSoft. I would resign from a company before I ever allowed myself to be a party to such a fraud, and I don't understand why the people involved with packaging products and creating these ELUAs at MS don't do this simply to preserve their own integrity. I'm sure MicroSoft would claim that values like integrity, morality, honesty, and honor are very important at their company, but how can we reconcile such a theory with these ELUAs?
Adrian
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, nobody really cares about the truth... enjoy your silly FUD.
I'll concede that the article is just FUD iff your MS rep is willing to put it in writing under his signature as a representative of the company. (A pointer to a scan of the letter will suffice as proof.)
Otherwise, his statement means nothing.
Re:Anything to Limit MS (Score:5, Insightful)
> Sure, punish success. That'll inspire people to create!
Microsoft has broken the law and been found guilty. That is a matter of public record (verified by an Appeals court). Breaking the law carries a penalty.
Allowing Microsoft to break the same laws over and over (like they are doing now) and to let them successfully get away with it only inspires them and others to continue breaking the law. Microsoft needs to be punished so they and others will take the law seriously.
Take this case for example. The EULA of XP is forbidding the use of an entire category of software if it comes from a third party. If XP does catch on to become the version of Windows used the most, then everybody else making that category of software is immediately out of business, regardless of how successful or good their product is. How exactly does that situation inspire people to create? It doesn't, it punishes them for trying to create. Microsoft is wrecking their businesses just because Microsoft is greedy and wants people to buy more licenses.
Maybe you don't care about Microsoft's victims. When Microsoft starts charging you for every time you turn your computer on, will you care then?
Then it will be too late.
What happens when you embrace and extend Godzilla? Nuclear heartburn!
See "Godzilla 2000" (released in Japan as "Godzilla 2000 Millenium") for details.