Mailing List Archive

WARNING! License has changed, with privacy issues. Read the EULA!

On Thursday 01 August 2002 12:48 pm, Leif Sawyer wrote:
>FYI
>
>-----Original Message-----
>Subject: Windows 2000 Service Pack 3 now available.
>
>
>Microsoft has just release its final version of Service Pack 3. A list of
>fixes incorporated into SP3 can be found at:
>
>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q320853
>
>Service Pack 3 (128 mg) can be downloaded at:
>
>http://download.microsoft.com/download/win2000platform/SP/SP3/NT5/EN-US/w2ks
>p3.exe
>
>_______________________________________________
>Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>Full-Disclosure@lists.netsys.com
>http://lists.netsys.com/mailman/listinfo/full-disclosure

--

Steve Szmidt
V.P. Information Technology
Video Group Distributors, Inc.

> WARNING! License has changed, with privacy issues. Read the EULA!

Could someone send me the EULA?
I don't use MS software but interested in what changes they made to the
EULA.

Thanks
Thomas
--
thomas@northernsecurity.net | www.northernsecurity.net
thomas@se.linux.org | www.se.linux.org

On Mon, 05 Aug 2002, Thomas Sj?gren wrote:

>
> > WARNING! License has changed, with privacy issues. Read the EULA!
>
> Could someone send me the EULA?
> I don't use MS software but interested in what changes they made to the
> EULA.
>

Simply because it may be of some interest to the list, and since I
haven't heard it mentioned here, there is a vbs script that will
remove the EULA from programs so that you are not required to view or
agree to it. Legal impliations remain to be seen, but if you don't
agree, you don't agree. Code can be found at

http://picket.cc.purdue.edu/~erlee/antieula.html

PJ

--
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Ben Franklin

On Monday 05 August 2002 07:03 pm, PJ wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Aug 2002, Thomas Sj?gren wrote:
>> > WARNING! License has changed, with privacy issues. Read the EULA!
>>
>> Could someone send me the EULA?
>> I don't use MS software but interested in what changes they made to the
>> EULA.
>
>Simply because it may be of some interest to the list, and since I
>haven't heard it mentioned here, there is a vbs script that will
>remove the EULA from programs so that you are not required to view or
>agree to it. Legal impliations remain to be seen, but if you don't
>agree, you don't agree. Code can be found at
>
>http://picket.cc.purdue.edu/~erlee/antieula.html
>
>PJ

Sorry but this sounds plain stupid. How would you convince a judge that you
ran a program designed to remove the EULA, and now that it gone you don't
need to follow it!? The argument seem too easily shut down with common sense.
Why did you run a program designed to remove EULA's in the first place? Of
course he would say you did it to circumvent a legal requirement!

I'd love to see someone who got away with that. One thing would be to remove
it at Microsoft before they implemented it on the CD, or their web site. This
way you could argue that you never received it, and that would be easily
proven.
--

Steve Szmidt
V.P. Information Technology
Video Group Distributors, Inc.

Steve Szmitdt wrote:

> Sorry but this sounds plain stupid. How would you convince a judge
that
> you ran a program designed to remove the EULA, and now that it gone
you
> don't need to follow it!?

I think the rationale is, it's not an "agreement" if you didn't agree.
There is no pretense that you were unaware of the EULA. Just that you
never agreed to it.

Conditions presented after the sale are (or should be) unenforceable.
Especially things like MS has added to their EULA for W2K SP3. This is
clearly changing the conditions after the sale. The question is, do
they have a right to refuse to fix defects in an already-purchased
product unless you agree to new terms and conditions. Legally I'm not
sure, but ethically it is pretty clear. They are trying to bully their
customers. Typical monopolist behavior. And especially blatant, given
the current barrage of lawsuits against them on this subject.

On Tue, 6 Aug 2002, Steve wrote:

> Sorry but this sounds plain stupid.

Yep.

--
Jonathan Rickman
X Corps Security
http://www.xcorps.net

On Tue, 06 Aug 2002, Steve wrote:

> Sorry but this sounds plain stupid. How would you convince a judge that you
> ran a program designed to remove the EULA, and now that it gone you don't
> need to follow it!? The argument seem too easily shut down with common sense.
> Why did you run a program designed to remove EULA's in the first place? Of
> course he would say you did it to circumvent a legal requirement!

The point is that you are not legally required to sign or agree with a
contract that is simply presented in front of you, if you don't agree
to it, you can negotiate the points in contention, refuse to sign or
make your own addumenum before presenting it to the other party. Now,
since you have already paid your money and are not presented with the
EULA until you start installing, this removes the need to actually
agree with whatever terms are presented to you after the fact. The
point is, since you never agreed to it, you are not legally obliged to
follow it. Previously, the only way to install is to agree to
whatever. This removes that need. I would have thought this point obvious.

> I'd love to see someone who got away with that. One thing would be to remove
> it at Microsoft before they implemented it on the CD, or their web site. This
> way you could argue that you never received it, and that would be easily
> proven.

If I am not mistaken, an EULA has never been tested in a court of law.
Of course, as noted, regular copyright law would still apply.

PJ

--
When you play, play to your own strengths, not the strengths of the enemy.

On Tuesday 06 August 2002 10:20 am, PJ wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Aug 2002, Steve wrote:
>> Sorry but this sounds plain stupid. How would you convince a judge that
>> you ran a program designed to remove the EULA, and now that it gone you

>
>The point is that you are not legally required to sign or agree with a
>contract that is simply presented in front of you, if you don't agree
>to it, you can negotiate the points in contention, refuse to sign or
>make your own addumenum before presenting it to the other party. Now,
>since you have already paid your money and are not presented with the
>EULA until you start installing, this removes the need to actually
>agree with whatever terms are presented to you after the fact. The
>point is, since you never agreed to it, you are not legally obliged to
>follow it. Previously, the only way to install is to agree to
>whatever. This removes that need. I would have thought this point obvious.

OK, good point. As you say the EULA has not been tested in court. It might be
to our advantage to try to get it into court and remove, or verify, the
potential ax hanging over our heads. If I could afford to, I'd be happy to
take them to court on it. And ensure good media coverage!

>> I'd love to see someone who got away with that. One thing would be to
>> remove it at Microsoft before they implemented it on the CD, or their web
>> site. This way you could argue that you never received it, and that would
>> be easily proven.
>
>If I am not mistaken, an EULA has never been tested in a court of law.
>Of course, as noted, regular copyright law would still apply.
>
>PJ

--

Steve Szmidt
V.P. Information Technology
Video Group Distributors, Inc.

On Tue, 2002-08-06 at 10:20, PJ wrote:

> If I am not mistaken, an EULA has never been tested in a court of law.
> Of course, as noted, regular copyright law would still apply.

EULAs have been tested in courts of law, but AFAIK, only the "we
disclaim all responsibility if it murders your family" part.

But, are you willing to spend a million or two challenging MicroSoft and
demanding that they do not try and collect that information? Of course
not --- and that's why they will get away with it.