The EULA of discussion has one implied purpose; legally protecting Microsoft
and Vista's OS from not-authorized OS modifications. Regardless if the source
is licensed builders, OEMs, third party software vendors, and specifically
any and all persons attempting to weaken Kernel Patch Protection, hash,
serial numbers, matching points, and obviously includes whackers and hackers.
Win XP has a very similar EULA. The legal difference regarding Vista'a EULA,
the Vista EULA includes a Giant Bear Trap that's loaded and ready for
springing into action, instantly.
Microsoft's incredible Jim Allchinn has several online articles extensively
sharing the security reasons for the importance for legally protecting Kernel
Patch Protection, as well as Vista's entire OS.
Who benefits the most from Vista's EULA? Does our entire world benefit the
most?
Why you ask; for sustaining the most state-of-the-art ultra secure OS as
Windows Vista.
Microsoft has many legal professionals ready and fully prepared for pursuing
litigation toward the first character that attempts modification of the
Kernel Patch Protection. The word "attempts" is used because Microsoft's
silent online Security instantly identifies any attempts for illegally
modifying Vista's OS.
Again, who receives the most factual benefit from the EULA while using
Windows Vista?
--
Windows Vista
Become Part of The Legacy!
"Rock" wrote:
> "Colin Barnhorst" wrote
>
> > The Vista EULA states:
> >
> > "8. SCOPE OF LICENSE. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement
> > only gives you some
> > rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights. Unless
> > applicable law gives you
> > more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as
> > expressly permitted in this
> > agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in
> > the software that only
> > allow you to use it in certain ways. For more information, see
> > http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/userights. You may not
> > ยท work around any technical limitations in the software;
> > (snip)
> >
> > The procedure in the DT article may be covered by this provision. At the
> > very least, I would check with MS to see if does before recommending it to
> > others.
>
> Say it is in fact a violation of the EULA, there is no way to know that was
> done, is there? So in effect there is no practical way to enforce it.
> Knowing something is a violation of the EULA has an impact on some, but
> others don't care. Moving an OEM copy of the OS to a new computer, then
> lying when calling in for activation, is no problem for some folks. With no
> teeth to the enforcement it opens things wide for dual boot with the
> qualifying OS, selling that OS, installing it on another system, etc. I
> can't believe they left open this door.
>
> --
> Rock [MVP - User/Shell]
>
>