Vista - A EULA issue regarding the Daily Tech installation workaround

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
· 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.

Now, guys, fire away.

>You may not work around any technical limitations in the software

I've never liked that statement.... I'm not even sure what that could
possibly cover.

-Michael

"Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst@msn.com> wrote in message
news:4EA92999-9E8B-4043-9226-003DF7C9EF8E@microsoft.com...
> 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
> · 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.
>
> Now, guys, fire away.

"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
> · 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]

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
> > · 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]
>
>

Don't you think that, if you are going to drop his name (as you do with all
the Important People that you pretend to know), that you should at least
spell it correctly, "Frankie"**?
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/e...m/default.mspx

**
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/wi...fast-lane.aspx

--

Maxwell Bluemeanie
Exposing "Vista Ready" bit by bit

"Jonathan Schwartz 2" <JonathanSchwartz2@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:FDDB396E-40FD-44A1-936B-43F2CE38BB63@microsoft.com...
>
> 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.

On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 00:11:16 -0500, MICHAEL wrote:
>
>>You may not work around any technical limitations in the software
>
> I've never liked that statement.... I'm not even sure what that could
> possibly cover.

And I don't see what "work around" was used - if the installer permits
the described actions, then it's not a work around.

--
Leythos
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 22:05:07 -0700, "Colin Barnhorst"
<colinbarharst@msn.com> 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
>· 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.
>
>Now, guys, fire away.


Don't see any problem at all with this. The functionality to do the
clean install work around is built into the Setup.exe program which
comes with the Official MS version of Vista. This means it was
released by MS and that they know that this functionality exists. You
are not bypassing any technical limitations if you simply know about a
non-published function that is built into the program.

In article <4EA92999-9E8B-4043-9226-003DF7C9EF8E@microsoft.com>, Colin
Barnhorst wrote:

> You may not work around any technical limitations in the software;

I suspect Microsoft's Lawyers overlooked the difference between
"limitation" and "limit" ?

If there's a bug and I install a Microsoft fix I am working around the
"limitation in ths software as I bought it which they should want me to
do.

If there's something there to stop be doing something they don't want
me to do and I find a way round that I am working around the "limit in
the software" which they do not want me to do

It is a workaround because elsewhere in the EULA the user is prohibited from
continuing to use the operating system that qualified for
upgrade/replacement.

"Leythos" <Void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:1170327295_4737@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 00:11:16 -0500, MICHAEL wrote:
>>
>>>You may not work around any technical limitations in the software
>>
>> I've never liked that statement.... I'm not even sure what that could
>> possibly cover.
>
> And I don't see what "work around" was used - if the installer permits
> the described actions, then it's not a work around.
>
> --
> Leythos
> spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

For example, since Vista home editions are permitted in the EULA to have no
more than 5 inbound connections and Business is permitted 10, a registry or
other modification to allow 10 in Home is deemed exceeding the scope of the
Home license and puts you out of compliance. There are lots of other
edition-specific limitations that are enforced in the technology by registry
keys and such. Just because you know how to exceed the limitations
specified in the EULA does not keep you from being out of compliance when
you do it.

In this case, if an upgrade edition license prohibits continued use of the
software after its license has been subsumed by the upgrade license, then
the mere fact that you can make it work anyway (working around the technical
limitation) does not make it OK to do so.

I want to reemphacize that because this is a licencing issue, whatever you
decide to do on your own machine, don't give out advice to other users to do
it unless you can get confirmation from a Microsoft local office that it
does not create an out of compliance situation in your region. Remember,
like OEM restrictions, this can vary according to your region.

"MICHAEL" <u158627_emr@dslr.net> wrote in message
news:%23raOs9bRHHA.4692@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> >You may not work around any technical limitations in the software
>
> I've never liked that statement.... I'm not even sure what that could
> possibly cover.
>
> -Michael
>
> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:4EA92999-9E8B-4043-9226-003DF7C9EF8E@microsoft.com...
>> 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
>> · 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.
>>
>> Now, guys, fire away.
>