What is Digg?103 Comments
- wpholmes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18I challenge anyone to find a single person who hasn't broken this...
You may not lend you computer to anyone? wtf? - zootm, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20@Shii
"I think it's pretty accurate, actually. Do you see any specific mistakes?"
There's systematic bias in the translations. For example:
"You agree that at any time, and at the request of %u201Ccontent providers%u201D (eg. media giants such as Sony and BMG), Microsoft may disable certain features on your computer, such as the ability to play your music or movie files."
This is misleading. The only thing it gives them the right to do is revoke the licences to DRMed content. Although their translation is technically correct, it is misleading - they imply that the rule is more wide-ranging than it is. This is a general trend.
"You agree that Microsoft can automatically and without your consent put new software on your computer."
This is misleading because the wording specifically restricts it to "upgrades and fixes", which isn't the "any new software" they imply. Again, accurate but misleadingly worded.
On the whole it's not *that bad*, but a "plain English" guide really should put a little more rigour into using accurate wording. Comments like "What are you paying for, exactly?" are unhelpful and stupid (you're paying for a licence to use the software, not any guarantee that it's flawless, since no software is). - Lorian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16Not really, here is what it actually says:
"4. LIMITATIONS ON REVERSE ENGINEERING, DECOMPILATION, AND DISASSEMBLY. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation." - PurpleMeteor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17It may be a Microsoft basher but some paragraphs of all EULAs are illegal in some countries (most european countries for example).
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16I think it's pretty accurate, actually. Do you see any specific mistakes?
If this doesn't seem scary to you, compare it to the rights you have with Linux. - morphie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13"5. NO RENTAL/COMMERCIAL HOSTING. You may not rent, lease, lend or provide commercial hosting services with the Software."
Is translated to:
"You may not rent, lease, or lend your computer (including laptops) to anyone once it has Windows XP Home on it."
That is not correct. You may lend your PC, but you cannot host services with WinXP Home, like a webserver for example. It is still a silly restriction, but if you want people to explain what is in the XP EULA, then do it right and don't lie. - interiot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Can somebody set up a Wiki so people can do this? I'd love to 1) make it clear to companies that there's wide demand for clearly understandable EULAs, 2) it'd be nice if people with a minute or two extra on their hands could help out with something like this, and 3) it'd be nice if people could discuss and correct any mistakes with the simplified english (I think this author simplified a few sections too much, for instance)
- shikitho, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Software developers cannot attempt to figure out how Windows XP Home works for any reason (including writing software that works with or communicates with Windows XP Home). Communicates with the OS?? Every piece of software would be breaking the EULA!
- mwace, on 10/19/2007, -4/+13"Microsoft is not liable even if they break the terms of this agreement."
Thats heavy. I don't know how biased the author of this article is, but in their current position Microsoft can really get away with this. I really wish I could read something like this and then have the option to switch to a competing alternative product if I felt this is a product (or company) I do not want to support. As it is, I have no option but to accept... I know linux is great, but I'm a gamer, and I need DirectX - and Apple requires new hardware.
If you ask me, the goverment should split Microsoft into three competing companies. Each company inherits the patents and such of microsoft, and they all start off with everything Microsoft had up until it broke up - and each chunk of what used to be microsoft creates their own flavor of Windows, and they all release them together in a competitive enviornment. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/eulalyzer.html
eula analyzer is an ok software that reads them things for ya.
hadnt used it in a while i am going to see what it says on the xp eula - TROGDOR42, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I'd like somebody to write a similar article for Ubuntu or another Linux distro as a comparison. Aw, hell, how about OS X too?
- EPeters, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6the software transfer part in the best. You can install win xp home on second computer, as long as you delete the other installation. That kills microsofts ideas about charging you for a new install of xp.
http://www.digg.com/software/Microsoft:_Upgraded_Motherboard_=_New_Windows_Licence - antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -17/+23Would people stop saying: Only 40 diggs and on the front page? YES IT'S ON THE DAMN FRONT PAGE! DEAL!
- The_Decryptor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"the goverment should split Microsoft into three competing companies."
They were going to do that (due to the anti-trust ruling), it was going to be a Windows division, a MS Office division, and i think a MSN division.
Just think, if the MS Office part were competing in a free market, we might have seen a copy for Linux. - Pother, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5So with Linux "you get what you pay for". You pay nothing, no one promises you anything, and you get something that might work for you or your business. And if you need professional support you can pay something and get it.
And it appears with Windows "you don't get what you pay for". You pay something, Microsoft promises you nothing, and you get something that might work for you or your business. And if you need professional support you can pay something and get it.
So with Windows, basically we're paying Microsoft to promise us nothing.
Ahh the wonders of marketing and salemanship! - swhite1987, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I love how all of the Mac and Linux fanboys out there mod down any comment that sheds the least bit of negative light on their "perfect" product. Deal with it- the article was biased, and from LINUXADVOCATE.com. Obviously the goal of the entire thing is to bash Microsoft. I'm no Microsoft fan, but I'm sick of getting modded down for useful and non-biased comments.
MOD ME DOWN FOOLS - edwinm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I think it's fair to translate "REVERSE ENGINEERING, DECOMPILATION, AND DISASSEMBLY" with "figuring out how it works".
If this explanation isn't clear enough, you should've read the real EULA to begin with. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4IANAL, but the EULA and the translation seemed pretty well matched. Then again my interpretation of Microsoft's legal speak could be off. If they wanted to be disingenuous and just bash Microsoft, I doubt they would have provided the text of the EULA and link to the official copy on Microsoft's website so users can decide for themselves. As the article points, out whether or not you read the EULA, you're bound by it if you use XP. Many people skip reading it because it's long and in legal speak. So if an English summary gets people to read (even if it's because you think they're bashing MS) what they're agreeing to when they use Microsoft or anyone else's products then it's a good thing. As for bias, there is a varying degree of bias in just about everything you read. The potential for bias doesn't necessarily invalidate what's being said or argued. How many EFF and Arstechnica (sp?) article get put up on digg? Both of those sources have some pretty clear biases, especially when it comes to copyright issues and the RIAA and MPAA (aka MAFIA), yet we don't just dismiss articles.
- IQ70, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Please read OS X EULA.
http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/macosx104.html
It pretty much says the same things, as in, cannot reverse engineer, cannot rent, cannot use on more than one apple-made computer, you consent to allow them to use data, and they are not liable for anything.
So, what is the whole issue with the XP EULA again? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"You may permit a maximum of five (5) computers or other electronic devices (each a "Device") to connect to the Workstation Computer...."
i guess p2p breaks the eula - diggtastical, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@zootm
"This is misleading because the wording specifically restricts it to 'upgrades and fixes'"
If MS has the right to upgrade/change/switch (whatever they want to call it) software on your computer, what happens if they break things? What if the "upgrade" does something you don't want it to do?
Really, couldn't they put *anything* on your computer as part of an "upgrade"? Meh. - crpietschmann, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7"including writing software that works with or communicates with Windows XP Home"
Now doesn't all software running on Windows work with and communicate with Windows???
Yeah, the person that wrote this "EULA in Plain English" doesn't seem to have very much technical knowledge. - ubergmr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Why can't all EULAs be written like this. Then i would actually take the time to read them.
- Lorian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Schools and Internet cafes usually have a site liscence or similar, allowing them to install it on every computer. The stupid ones go out and buy a copy for every PC, wasting thousands of dollars, the sensible ones just download it of BT...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4eula are on shaky legal ground anyway.. how can you agree to a contract, if you have to buy the software before you can read it? what about giving me a chance to counter?
I think eulas are cute but i highly doubt anyone was ever busted for not following one. - chrislewis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5'You agree that Microsoft can automatically and without your consent put new software on your computer.'
Whoa. Thats pretty scary. Suppose this program deleted all "untrusted" software? - Lorian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I dugg your post, I was wondering why everyone was modding it down...
- leszek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5be patient, with the speed of wine development, i bet you could play 99.9% of windows games on linux in 3 years.
- mike_c, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"You may not rent, lease, or lend your computer (including laptops) to anyone once it has Windows XP Home on it."
how do schools and internet cafes work? does pro allow this? - xice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3well, 1st non-gpl eula ive ever read..thanks
- mikesmullin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This translated version was a quick read and easy to understand, thanks.
It would be nice other agreements requiring acceptance by someone who does not practice law could be translated in this way and distributed with the product.
In the future, I wonder if there will be EULAs such as this for farmers once we are able to genetically engineer and clone livestock commercially. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3it depends on the catagories it is posted in i believe..
I also wonder why this one is in "deals"
but it probably isnt a mistake. - leszek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Keyboard, mouse, joystick, screen, printer, scanner
oops 6 devices. - AeroSquid, on 10/19/2007, -3/+6Most software has similar EULAs.
- chrislewis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I see good logic in your comment - I think EULAS are deliberatly confusified to make people think "meh, I'm not reading this". Dishonourable it the kindest word I would the Windows eula.
- artur.ventura, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Great part of EULA is ilegal in my country!
Here you can't say things like
"Microsoft is not liable even if they break the terms of this agreement."
or
"Microsoft will never have to pay you more than the price you originally paid for Windows XP Home." - xaxa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Have a look at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html (and the FAQs linked from it -- there's even a quiz!)
- cwcheang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Microsoft assures you that Windows XP Home will work correctly for the first 90 days. They do not assure you that Windows XP Home or any “service packs” or “hot fixes” will work correctly after this time."
That seems somewhat odd.... - freeshri, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2all Eula's should be written in plain English and shortened, if they expect anyone to read it.
seriously, how many of you read the whole thing before clicking 'I accept' ? maybe one person, MAYBE - Sukino, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2File Services = p2p for me
- IcanFLY, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They don't have it in this, but the .NET EULA has something like it. In the beta versions of .NET SDK, there was a clause saying no benchmarks of performance could be released. Once it left beta, they changed it to say that benchmarks were allowed publicly, as long as there was a detailed description of how exactly the test was carried out, that was repeatable.
- theone3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Almost all intellectual property can be brought down to binary form. (Medium of Windows is a CD, medium of a book is paper) But you're not paying for 1's and 0's, you're paying for the functions that Windows enables you to use. If Windows was distributed in a non-binary form (let's say an analogue form), but the user experience was the same, would the demand differ? Similarly, if there was no user experience, no 'toolkit', would the demand differ?
- KageKonjou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"2.1 Digital Rights Management. Content providers are using the digital rights management technology contained in this Software ("DRM") to protect the integrity of their content ( "Secure Content") so that their intellectual property, including copyright, in such content is not misappropriated. Portions of this Software . . ."
Translated to:
"Microsoft and all its content providers are allowed to watch your porn." - Lorian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Just found this on the Microsoft website: "OEM operating system licenses live and die with each PC—they are not transferable."
- CarzorStelatis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't think it'll happen anytime soon - there are all sorts of legal issues with rephrasing a legal statement from someone else and claiming it as authoritative.
- freeaxes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3<sigh> this is exactly what zootm is talking about... the ACTUAL EULA text reads:
"5. NO RENTAL/COMMERCIAL HOSTING. You may not rent, lease, lend or provide commercial hosting services with the Software."
That's a restriction on the SOFTWARE... not the computer. The correct "English" translation of that section should have been:
"You may not rent, lease, or lend your copy of Windows XP Home to anyone, or use it to provide commercial hosting services."
Nothing silly about that. You're not allowed to set up a "Blockbuster Operating Systems" rental store (duh), and if you want to provide commercial hosting services, you're supposed to buy a copy of Windows Server 2003 (or whatever the equivalent was back when XP launched).
zootm: I suppose it's to be expected that a site named "linuxadvocate.org" would be somewhat biased in this regard =) - zootm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@freeaxes
"zootm: I suppose it's to be expected that a site named "linuxadvocate.org" would be somewhat biased in this regard =)"
Well, perhaps, but to be honest I really do like OSS software (most of my systems run Linux, and it's great to see it get more usable all the time), and it just pains me to see a community which has spent so long complaining about "FUD" shamelessly use the very same tactics without a second thought. It damages the credibility of the community as a whole. - nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I agree, it is biased. But at least they put the real EULA next to their "translation" so you can read it yourself and make your own decision.
- nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The WMP10 EULA has some equally questionable parts in it.
- EPeters, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2OEM copies ARE full versions of windows that can be legally re-installed, but HP is too stupid/cheap to give you the install disc. Restore discs are useless in any situation, HD failure, virus/spyware, software glitch, driver issues, etc. There are far better was to resolve those problems, but HP would never want to spend the time to help you.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 104 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is