Re: Barriers to an ASP loophole closure [OT note about XP EULA]
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 05:37:18AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 04:37:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Allow me to propose the "What if Microsoft Did It" test. Microsoft
> > creates a new program, and says "you are prohibited from running this
> > program behind a web site for other people without paying us money;
> > after all, this is really a way of trying to cheat us out of selling
> > the program to more people." We would cry foul, right?
>
> I think you're behind on your Microsoft evilness :)
>
> (from http://www.infoworld.com/article/02/03/15/020318oplivingston_1.html)
> 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."
>
> This goes even farther than your "web site" example, since it prohibits
> all remote access to the computer except by Microsoft products.
>
> Did we cry foul? Depends on who "we" is. There were some comments,
> but most people seem to have accepted it as one of the many costs
> of dealing with the Beast.
>
>
*I* cried foul. And many others too. So loud that it made MS
retract it slightly, so similar non-MS programs were permitted
too.
Their "new" position is that you need an extra XP license if two
different machines are showing two independent XP desktops at
the same time, even if there is only one running kernel. The
list in the license is just an illustrative list of examples of
the kind of access which is permitted, not an exclusive list of
what to use. So the UI part of XP is licensed per simultaneous
GUI terminal session, pay once per displayed independently
behaving UI copy, but at least once per machine actually running
the code.
Put another way, they now say that "as otherwise permitted by"
mean "in ways similar to what is possible using" not "when done
by means of specifically".
But in a older message posted by someone on the net another MS
representative did stick to the other interpretation.
So Microsoft apparently tried to go all the way but ended up
just doing this:
> > creates a new program, and says "you are prohibited from running this
> > program behind a web site for other people without paying us money;
> > after all, this is really a way of trying to cheat us out of selling
> > the program to more people." We would cry foul, right?
Or put in terms that are actually used by the majority of
non-free software:
You must pay for your license to copy this software. The
amount paid is proportional to the number of users and/or
computers accessing copies of the software, but you may make
an unlimited number of backup copies as long as you are not
attempting to distribute or cheat.
[0] I think both MS messages can still be found with google.
--
This message is hastily written, please ignore any unpleasant wordings,
do not consider it a binding commitment, even if its phrasing may
indicate so. Its contents may be deliberately or accidentally untrue.
Trademarks and other things belong to their owners, if any.
Reply to: