The Self-Modifying EULA? 279
An anonymous reader asks: "Years ago, when I first installed Windows 2000, I accepted its EULA. Despite serious defects in the product, I resisted installing Service Packs because they modify the original EULA. Now even Homeland Security is on my back to upgrade and install a fix. I would be happy to install SP4 and all the security patches BUT ONLY IF IT IS DONE UNDER THE ORIGINAL EULA. Otherwise, Microsoft has made me an unwilling zombie. The clear fact is that Microsoft delivered a defective product- should not allow them to redefine our agreement. I cannot think of any other market that successfully browbeats its customers in this manner. Can this be legal? Has it been tested in court?"
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Exchange of mutual consideration (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree. I'm not sure why this would NOT hold up in court (also NAL*). They're giving you the changes and notifying you of it before you accept or install anything... what's the big deal?
* some things should not be made into acronyms
Re:It's Legal (Score:5, Interesting)
Security is a reasonable expectation.
The court rulings on this are mixed. (Score:5, Interesting)
Other sellout--err judges have held eulas are valid contracts.
To me it seems like they should all be invalidated in their entirety. EULAs as contracts are not negotiated between two parties who have equal latitude. One party has extreme market power, and the other doesn't even have the capacity for negotiation with said entity and has the choice of either accepting unreasonable terms or living in a cave by candle light. (no,that's not an exaggeration; companies are now insisting they still own your electronics even after you buy them --see microsoft tirades against xbox modders--)
Re:Exchange of mutual consideration (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's Legal (Score:2, Interesting)
In addition, they have tried to push a lot of FUD out there on other systems. In particular, they have funded numerous "independant" companies to hold back *nix (esp Linux). Of course, every effort has failed. But if any customer of MS is buying them because it is secure, well, then they have not done there homework.
Re:Is it possible (Score:5, Interesting)
EXACTLY!
just look at the unreasonable crap they cram into EULAs.
When companies tried this in the old days american workers were willing to stand up and strike, even in the face of direct threat to their familie's lives [wikipedia.org]
This generation is one of mindlessness, cowardice, and greed.
This is because of the way our schools and news are used to bombard us as citizens and our children, to teach us to be "good little consumers", to teach us that anyone who questions what the news outlets say is a "tinfoil hatted nut-job", and to persuade us not to act on the mountain of evidence that a wealthy few are impeding and keeping down the lower 95% of us by pounding in this false message that "you too can become rich if you work hard and play by our rules"....bullshit. The people whom these eula's represent are above the laws, they write the damn laws, and they write them with the specic aim of making sure they never have to share their power or money with we the peeons.
Exchange of mutual rules. (Score:1, Interesting)
Why the surprise? Slashdot in every copyright story posted has always argued that the digital domain. e.g software, music, etc falls under a different set of rules (from legal to economic) Don't bitch just because they're not working in your favour.
The suckiest EULA I use... (Score:2, Interesting)
Note the complete absence of restrictions on version numbers, other providers and making up one's own mind. And licence-fee auditing. That's how I like it to be. All of the updates come under the same EULA each time.
Click-wrap EULA are rarely valid (Score:2, Interesting)
The originating company has a different problem as they can never say 'that's not our software' where as the end user can always say 'I never clicked on that button, I'm not bound by the contract.'
Of course if you want to see how much companies believe in their EULA call one up and ask for a refund because you don't agree to the EULA. They all say 'If you don't wish to be bound by this agreement, return the product for a full refund.' Which contradicts the return policy of most software outlets by the way, and should be done directly with the company, not the place you bought it from, as it's not their fault. Good luck by the way, I've tried it with Microsoft, Mathworks, and HP. Not one company would issue a refund.
Re:Smug Linux World vs Reality (Score:2, Interesting)
yep.. and every major company and university on the planet too.. they ALL don't know how to use windows ; ).. in fact only bill gates himself knows how to use windows.
What part of not being able to run OSX on non Apple hardware is a myth !?!
well I don't consider that platform lockin. You can do anything that can be done on osX on another OS. That does not lock you in.
On the other hand... your case for windows indicates it's actually windows which promotes platform lockin.
many hardware peripherals are built windows only, and are protected by patents which prevent linux support.
wm9/10 are being vigorously protected by both software patents and the DMCA, preventing full and proper support on linux and to a great degree on osX.
Re:The court rulings on this are mixed. (Score:4, Interesting)
In all cases I've seen in Europe the rulings on EULAs have invalidated them entirely. This means in theory you can buy press "Ok" to the EULA in a different country then go back to the US and never be under the EULA.
Re:Is it possible (Score:3, Interesting)
I think part of the problem is that we've already lost power. Anyone who gets too vocal or decides to stand up for themselves against government or a big company will be thrown in prison, labelled a terrorist, and none of their fellow citizens will stand by them.
Re:Tricky lawyers... (Score:4, Interesting)
Read: [perkinscoie.com]
Kanitz v. Rogers Cable, Inc., OJ 665 (Ontario Super. Ct., 2002). A Canadian court upheld the validity of an amended clickwrap agreement. Rogers Cable amended its user agreement to include an arbitration clause. The originl agreement allowed for amendment provided Rogers gave notice to its customers by posting it on the website, via email, or by post. Furthermore, the agreement stated that continued use of the service following the notice constituted acceptance of the amended agreement. Rogers added the arbitration clause and posted the notice on its customer support webpage. The court held that Rogers had provided its customers with sufficient notice and that the plaintiff customers had accepted the agreement by their continued use of the service.
Re:Exchange of mutual consideration (Score:2, Interesting)
Seems to work for Apple--every 10.x release is another $139.
How about a EULA clearing house? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Interesting... (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft Backs Down on Windows 2000 EULA
"After the fiasco surrounding the overly intrusive EULA for Windows 2000 SP3, it seems Microsoft has backed down a bit with the upcoming release of SP4. The section concerning automatic updates now states simply "You consent to the operation of these features, unless you choose to switch them off or not use them." The EULA then proceeds to list the five services liable to connect to the internet without explicit confirmation. A reference copy of the SP4 EULA may be found here. We can only hope for a similar move with Windows XP."
Re:It's Legal (Score:3, Interesting)
And yes, I would call it overall secure. I would also say that the developers/distros do a good job of staying on top of the bugs. But if security is job 1, then openbsd, or a trusted *nix(trusted solaris) is what you seek.
BTW, several years ago I was developing systems for sale to a few US Federal agencies. They considered a few of the Linux secure enough, while Windows was not.
Re:Is it possible (Score:3, Interesting)
If, on the other hand, you have a belief set where you think you do have the right or the need to make that threat... well, you would be a terrorist and the system would be correct to so label you!
I'm not going to sit here and tell you that nobody has been falsely labelled a terrorist lately, but I will tell you the number is very very small, they've mostly been border-line cases not "random schmoes", for the most part the consequences for such people have been minor, and a lot of people seem to manage advocating all sorts of things, including overthrowing the current Administration (also known as "voting for a Democrat to be President") without spending time in jail for it. Even very mainstream people; when's the last time CNN ran something, anything complimentary to President Bush? 9/12/2001?
If true repression were in place, it would not look like Barlow filing a lawsuit and some protesters getting put on the do-not-fly list. It would look like, you know, a dictatorship, like in China, where even posting something on the internet "anonymously" against the current government is completely literally taking your life into your hands. Here, people talk like they are taking their life into their hands, but they sure as hell don't act like it, because if you really believed you were taking your life into your hands, you don't run around on every site you can find posting this stuff with enough information for anybody (let alone the government) to find out who you are with maybe two minute's searching. Or at least, such people would be mysteriously "filtered out" of consideration. Clearly, that's not happening.
(And no amount of whining in reply to this post can make it true. Unless you actually fear for your life contradicting me, you'll only further prove my point. And personally, I find it's easy to type "I fear for my life as a result of my beliefs."... like that. It doesn't make it true, and I really won't believe it even if you claim it. (Feel free to try to convince others, of course.))
Exchange of GPL versions. (Score:1, Interesting)
It should be interesting to see what happens when patches for GPLv2 code is released under GPLv3. Our next YRO story.
Re:Is it possible (Score:3, Interesting)
Good on you for having the guts to do that. An excessive of available accommodation probably helped your position. Sadly, vacant tenancy is (apparently) quite low here, which means you pay a lot for crap that would never be let otherwise.
Our system requires a high level of system safety (aviation), and the sofware has to be 'exactly the same' - every bit of data.
Damn, that sucks.
You've probably already covered these, but here are some suggestions:
- Talk to them again, mentioning that you're happy to purchase multiple copies of the software, but they need to be bitwise identical.
- Investigate other software that does a similar thing. Mention to their competitor you are happy to provide a "case study" quote saying why you switched over, it might be worth a discount.
- Check if the EULA actually is binding. Did you buy the software and then get presented with the EULA and it gave you option to install without agreement? Check your local laws, you may be able to disregard it.
- Check with your legal guys, but if you break an agreement they generally can go for damages. If you've bought enough licenses, their damages are going to be close to zero.
- You mention aviation. Are you government? Check to see if you can legally do what you ask anyway, regardless of what the EULA says.
- See if you can get your machine and its mirror classified as a single machine, or the mirror to be considered a cache.
Re:Are they even enforceable? (Score:3, Interesting)
>There's no "fair use". You do, actually, need a license
>to perform any act that requires copying takes place.
This is not completely true. Although no general "fair use" exists, there is special provisions for computer programs that allows you to make nessecary copies. There is a clause about regulating agreement but it doesn't require such a thing. In the absence of an agreement restricting copying, any copying needed to use the software is allowed by a lawfull user of the software. There is no requirement of having an agreement to be a lawfull user. So unless you do agree to a contract (for example an EULA) that restrict copying to use (which seems stupid), you are allowed by copyright law to make such copying anyway.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1992/Uksi_19923233_en
Re:Is it possible (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, there's a bit of smoke. I don't deny that. But there has pretty much always been smoke since the founding of the Republic. The US doesn't have a magic anti-authoritarian screen that prevent such people from being born or attaining power.
The real question is, are all the people screaming about the smoke being silenced? And the answer is, no.
I'll be sure to check back in a year and make sure your post wasn't censored by the goverment; if it was I'll start worrying.
So there's smoke... but it's not much. I'm far more concerned about what I see coming out of the paradise that is Europe than what I see in this country at the moment.
What people like you don't understand is the old "Boy Who Cried Wolf" story. If you keep claiming the sky is already falling, when it actually does you'll have no credibility.
'Course, you're also a person that thinks a media that never says a good word about the current administration "favors" them, and I have to admit I tend to dismiss the opinions of people who think that the media is "nice" to the Administration because the media doesn't scream and bitch about everything you want them to, only some of the things. Generally speaking, I'd imagine that a media "favorable to the current administration" might actually say something positive about them every once in a while, but hey, what do I know?