[46991] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: [OT]Microsoft makes networked software 'illegal' on XPunless you pay them...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Benjamin P. Grubin)
Sun Apr 21 12:02:50 2002
From: "Benjamin P. Grubin" <bgrubin@pobox.com>
To: "'Richard Forno'" <rforno@infowarrior.org>,
<brucewms@pacbell.net>, "'Nanog (E-mail)'" <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 12:02:16 -0400
Message-ID: <000701c1e94d$ebb16670$080aa8c0@VINZCLORTHO>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <B8E83545.2CBD6%rforno@infowarrior.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Err--I think you guys are reading too much into this. The license (to
me, and IANAL), seems to indicate that the workstation cannot be used as
a server unless you purchase server licenses. It strikes me that
language very similar to this has been in the workstation products since
NT4.
I do, OTOH, think that the legal ramifications sounds quite far-reaching
since the language is so broad.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On
> Behalf Of Richard Forno
> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 9:22 AM
> To: brucewms@pacbell.net; Nanog (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [OT]Microsoft makes networked software 'illegal'
> on XPunless you pay them...
>
>
>
> That's funny.
>
> Yet another case of someone - either a company through licensing and
> litigation, or a government through legislation - trying to
> effect both
> software quality.
>
> Forget the fact that such tools may be exploitable - if
> you're a computer
> criminal, the fact you're violating a software license clause
> probably isn't
> going to deter you from your actions, much like how 'drug
> crimes using a
> gun' probably doesn't deter many drug criminals, either.
>
> Instead of addressing the technical problem - eg, poor
> software development
> and flaws in how the software works - we're once again seeing it
> legislated/litigated away (I'm thinking of Adobe E-Reader,
> DeCSS, etc here).
> Talk about burying your head in the sand, which appears to be
> the status
> quo, even in today's environment of security hysteria where
> we 'need to do
> more'.
>
> From what I see here in DC, nobody's REALLY interested in addressing
> security long term, as it will rock the boat too much; so we
> continue seeing
> little goofy ways to look like security is being addressed
> when in reality,
> security ISN'T being addressed.
>
> rf
> infowarrior.org
> windows-free since 1999 :)
>
>
> > From: Bruce Williams <brucewms@pacbell.net>
> > From
> >
> http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/02/03/18/020318oplivi
ngston.xml
>
> 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."
>
> I guess this improves security....
>
> bye,
> Bruce Williams
> "Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
