« Apple, don't be a bunch of tools. | Main | Minor wedding update »

Fun with Licenses

Okay, so since I beat Apple about being tools, I knew that if I waited long enough, Microsoft would rise to the competition and show their own Makita-like behavior...and I was not wrong.

It's funny, how in the middle of promoting their own virtualization products, they commence to doing their best to restrict their use in such an environment.

From the EULA for Windows Business:

You may use the software installed on the licensed
device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system. If you do so, you may not play or
access content or use applications protected by any Microsoft digital, information or enterprise
rights management technology or other Microsoft rights management services or use BitLocker. We
advise against playing or accessing content or using applications protected by other digital,
information or enterprise rights management technology or other rights management services or
using full volume disk drive encryption.

Well isn't that handy. Microsoft forbids you from using their DRM/IRM technology, then recommends you don't use anyone else's. Thanks a pantload Chet. Now, while the DRM thing brings to mind "Okay, so don't use Windows Media Player at work", it's leaving off the fact that there's quite a few uses for DRM within business purposes. The more restrictive one is the enterprise rights management technology prohibition. This is what things like Office use to restrict/controll access to things like oh, sensitive documents, etc.

So, you can use Vista Business in a VM, but you can't use it for work that might be of a sensitive nature. How friggin' handy. Thanks again. This bizarre restriction also applies to Ultimate. Yeesh. The Vista home versions are better. You can't use them at all in a virtual machine. Go Microsoft Legal.

But it gets better. From section 8, Scope of License:

You may not

· work around any technical limitations in the software;

What the HELL does that mean? If I find a bug, (which can easily be defined as a "technical limitation in the software"), am I now restricted from doing anything to work around it until Big Daddy Ballmer blesses me with a fix? What if it's never fixed, or isn't fixed until the next paid upgrade? If I find something that Windows doesn't do well, and I figure out a way to make it do it better, evidently, I'm required to work at the more crappy level, rather than "work around a technical limitation in the software". That's vague in a very dangerous way, as it could be taken to mean no patching, no hacking, no modifying, etc. Great. So much for things like non-Microsoft-provided versions of Winternals. This is so STUPIDLY vague as to be able to prevent you from installing ANYTHING that overrides an inferior Vista function.

Again, this is not the Home version or the others. It's the business version.

Now, to be fair, Apple's OS X EULA completely proscribes using it on non-Apple hardware. That can, with most logic, be extended to VMs. However, since Apple's not selling virtualization software, it's a little less dumb. As well, as long as you were running the VM software on a Mac, then you're still running on an "Apple-labled computer", so you'd not be in violation of the EULA, as long as you weren't running more copies than you were licensed for.

The closest the OS X EULA gets to the stupidity of section 8 of the Vista EULA is in section 2, paragraph C:

Except as and only to the extent permitted in this License, by applicable licensing terms governing use of the Open-Sourced
Components, or by applicable law, you may not copy, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, or create derivative works
of the Apple Software or any part thereof.

Oh yeah, and don't use it in a Nuclear Facility. Do note, it doesn't say "You may not work around any technical limitation in the software", and even the prohibition against copying/decompiling/reverse engineering/disassembling/modifying/or creating derivative works only applies to the Apple software, not the open source stuff.

I don't like the "modify". Again, it's a vague legal term. Do they mean modify the code, or just what happens when it runs? Is an input manager or a haxie part of this? Vague legal terms, bad idea.

It's still not as bad as specifically preventing you from working around technical limitations however. That's just...lame.

Ah, Microsoft. Overachieving yet again.

Technorati Tags: Apple, Mac OS X, Microsoft, TEH STOOPUD, Windows

Categories: Other, Windows

Posted by John C. Welch at 09:43 | Permalink

Comments

Warning for Notes users: The commenting system uses HTML.
I know this will be scary for some of you, especially Notes fans. However, open standards, rah-rah.
If you want to use less-than or greater-than signs, or other similar charachters that HTML reserves,
you'll simply have to learn to do it the HTML way. Luckily, HTML is kind of popular, no matter what
your re-educators have told you, and you can easily find help on the intertubes.

Okay, so since I beat Apple about being tools, I knew that if I waited long enough, Microsoft would rise to the competition and show their own Makita-like behavior...and I was not wrong.\n\nIt's funny, how in the middle of promoting their own virtualization products, they commence to doing their best to restrict their use in such an environment. \n\nFrom the EULA for Windows Business:\n\n
You may use the software installed on the licensed \ndevice within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system. If you do so, you may not play or \naccess content or use applications protected by any Microsoft digital, information or enterprise \nrights management technology or other Microsoft rights management services or use BitLocker. We \nadvise against playing or accessing content or using applications protected by other digital, \ninformation or enterprise rights management technology or other rights management services or \nusing full volume disk drive encryption.
\n\nWell isn't that handy. Microsoft forbids you from using their DRM/IRM technology, then recommends you don't use anyone else's. Thanks a pantload Chet. Now, while the DRM thing brings to mind \"Okay, so don't use Windows Media Player at work\", it's leaving off the fact that there's quite a few uses for DRM within business purposes. The more restrictive one is the enterprise rights management technology prohibition. This is what things like Office use to restrict/controll access to things like oh, sensitive documents, etc. \n\nSo, you can use Vista Business in a VM, but you can't use it for work that might be of a sensitive nature. How friggin' handy. Thanks again. This bizarre restriction also applies to Ultimate. Yeesh. The Vista home versions are better. You can't use them at all in a virtual machine. Go Microsoft Legal.\n\nBut it gets better. From section 8, Scope of License:\n\n
You may not \n\n · work around any technical limitations in the software;
\n\nWhat the HELL does that mean? If I find a bug, (which can easily be defined as a \"technical limitation in the software\"), am I now restricted from doing anything to work around it until Big Daddy Ballmer blesses me with a fix? What if it's never fixed, or isn't fixed until the next paid upgrade? If I find something that Windows doesn't do well, and I figure out a way to make it do it better, evidently, I'm required to work at the more crappy level, rather than \"work around a technical limitation in the software\". That's vague in a very dangerous way, as it could be taken to mean no patching, no hacking, no modifying, etc. Great. So much for things like non-Microsoft-provided versions of Winternals. This is so STUPIDLY vague as to be able to prevent you from installing ANYTHING that overrides an inferior Vista function.\n\nAgain, this is not the Home version or the others. It's the business version.\n\nNow, to be fair, Apple's OS X EULA completely proscribes using it on non-Apple hardware. That can, with most logic, be extended to VMs. However, since Apple's not selling virtualization software, it's a little less dumb. As well, as long as you were running the VM software on a Mac, then you're still running on an \"Apple-labled computer\", so you'd not be in violation of the EULA, as long as you weren't running more copies than you were licensed for.\n\nThe closest the OS X EULA gets to the stupidity of section 8 of the Vista EULA is in section 2, paragraph C:\n\n
Except as and only to the extent permitted in this License, by applicable licensing terms governing use of the Open-Sourced \nComponents, or by applicable law, you may not copy, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, or create derivative works \nof the Apple Software or any part thereof.
\n\nOh yeah, and don't use it in a Nuclear Facility. Do note, it doesn't say \"You may not work around any technical limitation in the software\", and even the prohibition against copying/decompiling/reverse engineering/disassembling/modifying/or creating derivative works only applies to the Apple software, not the open source stuff.\n\nI don't like the \"modify\". Again, it's a vague legal term. Do they mean modify the code, or just what happens when it runs? Is an input manager or a haxie part of this? Vague legal terms, bad idea.\n\nIt's still not as bad as specifically preventing you from working around technical limitations however. That's just...lame.\n\nAh, Microsoft. Overachieving yet again.\n

Technorati Tags: Apple, Mac OS X, Microsoft, TEH STOOPUD, Windows