Coffeehouse Thread

41 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Vista Licensing

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    wkempf

    http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing_reply.asp

    Once again, MS is moving in directions that don't effect piracy in any way, but do effect legitimate owners.  And once again, if MS doesn't fix this, I'm likely to become a pirate.  Come on now, MS.  Treat your customers with some respect.  It's the only way you're really going to fight piracy and increase your bottom line.

  • User profile image
    Ucsbguy

    For a bit of perspective, from the Mac OS X Software License Agreement:

    (http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/macosx.html[^])

    2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
    A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time,and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time. You may make one copy of the Apple Software (excluding the Boot ROM code) in machine-readable form for backup purposes only; provided that the backup copy must include all copyright or other proprietary notices contained on the original.

    ....

    3. Transfer. You may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute or sublicense the Apple Software. You may, however, make a one-time permanent transfer of all of your license rights to the Apple Software (in its original form as provided by Apple) to another party, provided that: Angel the transfer must include all of the Apple Software, including all its component parts, original media, printed materials and this License; (b) you do not retain any copies of the Apple Software, full or partial, including copies stored on a computer or other storage device; and (c) the party receiving the Apple Software reads and agrees to accept the terms and conditions of this License. ....


  • User profile image
    wkempf

    1.  What another vendor does with their license has little to do with what the Vista license states.  IOW, just because someone else is doing something bad doesn't make it OK for you to do the same thing.

    2.  That license restricts the transfer to an individual, not to a device.  There's a mighty big difference here.  And though I find the clause for a one time transfer to anything to be bad, when that anything is a "device" it's about as bad as it can get.  (And actually, I think the Apple license would allow the new license holder the same transfer rights, so it's not really a one time transfer in the sense of the Vista license.  This just prevents me from transferring the license to two different people.)

    There's other interesting things in the license as well.  http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,2030003,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532.  Developers should be concerned about the restrictions on "virtual hardware".

  • User profile image
    JeremyJ

    Maybe I am just reading all of these EULA's different than everyone else but the way I see it is:

    The original computer has the license.  The computer is upgraded to the point of being considered new.  You make a one-time transfer to the new computer.  Now the same license applies to the new machine. 

    In the future you decide to upgrade all the hardware until it is considered a new machine again.  You make the one-time transfer to the new computer and the same license applies to the new machine.  Rinse, Repeat.

    It basically says that you can have Windows on one machine at a time.  If you move it then it has to exist in its entirety on the new machine and cannot still exist on the old machine. 

    That is how XP worked and I have activated it on many new machines without any problems.

  • User profile image
    DigitalDud

    wkempf wrote:
    http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing_reply.asp

    Once again, MS is moving in directions that don't effect piracy in any way, but do effect legitimate owners.  And once again, if MS doesn't fix this, I'm likely to become a pirate.  Come on now, MS.  Treat your customers with some respect.  It's the only way you're really going to fight piracy and increase your bottom line.


    MS should limit anti-piracy efforts like WGA to places where its a real problem like China.

  • User profile image
    Mike Dimmick

    You're shooting yourselves in the foot.

    Ever since these licences were announced, technical and enthusiast forums have been filled with posts arguing over what the licence means. Most of the posters have become highly disillusioned and announced an intention to switch to the Mac or to Linux.

    The licensing is simply much more draconian than people will accept. It is of course your right to set whatever terms you want - that's copyright, that the copyright owner retains the sole right to make copies except as licensed by them. However, consumers have a reasonable expectation that they will be able to resell an item that they have purchased, and therefore that they can, without limit, trade the license that they have purchased.

    For any interchangeable component, moreover, they have an expectation that they will be able to use that component with any other compatible component. They therefore expect to be able to move that component without limit. Limiting to a single transfer feels like you're abusing your customers. Some people will make additional copies without removing the previous copy, and you will have to catch this through activation.

    Requiring additional licences for virtual machines is stupid. A virtual machine is a drain on the host machine's resources; it does not allow the customer to do more, rather to do less. If you do not require additional licences if the customer upgrades to a processor package with more cores, gaining a more performant machine, why require a new licence if the system is made less performant?

    Saying something like this would go a long way to correcting the problem:

    'You may at any time, subject to Microsoft's approval, install copies of the software, provided that you remove all other active copies from other hardware. A Microsoft online service will automatically approve requests except where Microsoft has reasonable grounds to suspect that the terms of this license have been broken.'

    I'm no lawyer, so you'll probably want to reword it, but that's far more fair.

    With the licence terms you have currently published, you will sell fewer licences of Vista, because people simply aren't accepting the terms. The people who should be your early adopters are refusing to bite. Take my terms, and you may sell more licences in the long run.

    This licence change, or clarification, or whatever you want to call it, is the straw breaking the camel's back for me. I won't be upgrading to Vista. For me to adopt Vista, you'd have to fix this, you'd have to get compatibility working for eVC 3.0 and 4.0 (essential for my work, they currently both crash on loading a project), and you would have to commit to supporting Visual Studio .NET 2003 and SQL Server 2000, according to the dates outlined in your current support lifecycle pages (i.e. mainstream support to 14 October 2008 and 8 April 2008 respectively).

  • User profile image
    messerschmi​tt

    DesktopBSD 1.6 based on 6.2-FreeBSD CURRENT coming out soon with support for all my hardware, no need for Vista, hanging on to XP for Windows-apps that i must use on a separate partition

  • User profile image
    Mike Dimmick

    I forgot to say what I'd be doing.

    I'll be sticking with Windows XP. New hardware would be required for OS X - and new software, unless I put XP on as well. A desktop Unix would also require all new software - I'm perfectly happy with MS Office and will probably be upgrading to Office 2007.

    Frankly, as a complete environment, I still like Windows XP the best.

    A hint to Microsoft, though: don't do anything to force your XP customers to migrate, because they may not migrate to the platform you want them to. I have a feeling you may be supporting Windows XP for rather more years than in your current support lifecycle plans.

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

    Mike Dimmick wrote:
    A hint to Microsoft, though: don't do anything to force your XP customers to migrate, because they may not migrate to the platform you want them to. I have a feeling you may be supporting Windows XP for rather more years than in your current support lifecycle plans.

    I am not going to say anything pro or con, but I distinctly remember those exact same words being said by many in 2001 regarding Windows 2000 and Windows XP... Smiley

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

    thumbtacks wrote:
    Yeah, but in that case, customers were shifting from the crash-prone Windows 98 to a much more stable OS.

    What part of "Windows 2000 and Windows XP" was hard to read? Where did I mention Windows 98?
    thumbtacks wrote:
    Now, the shift will be much more difficult.

    Why don't we wait and see?

  • User profile image
    JasonOlson

    Here's my opinion, there is NO doom and gloom ahead for Vista's licensing. In the end, you have to remember that us geeks are in the MINORITY of all computer users. The number of non-geek people I know that have actually _read_ the EULA I could count on a single hand (and, technically, I could count using my entire arms as digits (heck, I only need two bits to describe the number of people)).

    How many non-techies are going to upgrade their machine more than once? Many of my family members that I play tech support for have never put a single extra component into their machines, EVER. The number of people that are upgrading their motherboard twice or more while running Vista will be pretty minimal.

    As for virtualized environments, I would love to make a comment, but I technically can't. Just read the license carefully. The basic, common-sense "you can't have this installed and running at the same time on different machines" applies (DISCLAIMER: this is just my opinion and NOT the opinions of my employer, I can't stress that enough!!!!).

    So, in the end I would wrap it up by saying Geeks are Geeks and Geeks are the minority. These "restrictions" are not going to impact your average computer user out there in the least. And, besides (as much as I HATE to admit it (because I think it's STUPID)), the majority of Vista licenses in the beginning are going to be coming from the OEMs that package Vista on their pre-built computers, NOT from users out there in the wild upgrading.

    There's no reason to cry foul and to say "IT'S THE END! IT'S THE END! YOU ARE LOSING USERS! YOU WILL DIE!!!!", because you just come off as sounding like Chicken Little. Just repeat to yourself: we are the minority, we are the minority, ad nauseum.

  • User profile image
    JasonOlson

    thumbtacks wrote:
    
    Or, now that you've become a Micro$oft shill, you find it necessary to troll and lash out unreasonably at anybody that responds to you?



    Now now now. Keep it civil thumbtacks. There is absolutely NO reason for a personal attack here.

  • User profile image
    JasonOlson

    thumbtacks wrote:
    
    JasonOlson wrote: 
    thumbtacks wrote: 
    Or, now that you've become a Micro$oft shill, you find it necessary to troll and lash out unreasonably at anybody that responds to you?

    Now now now. Keep it civil thumbtacks. There is absolutely NO reason for a personal attack here.
    I can't help it. It's Paolo's fault. His tone inferred that he was on the attack. I reacted.

    But he started it.


    LOL, you make me feel like a "parent" already even though my kid's not due for another six months Tongue Out. I just try to give people the benefit of the doubt. It's really easy to read people's tone wrong when it is simply wording. Of course, I also know that Paolo can get, um, heated, at times. Just no _personal_ attacks please Big Smile.

    EDIT: By the way, I absolutely LOVE your avatar Tongue Out.

    EDIT 2: Wow, that came off as TOTALLY sucking up. Dang, okay, no more blowing smoke up dark places Tongue Out (it's the politician in me (thanks Dad), I apologize Tongue Out)

  • User profile image
    Mark Brown

    For people here who are concerned with making virtual images of Vista for dev/test please know that this is not an issue if you have an MSDN subscription.

    You can make as many virtual images for dev/test as you want. Plus you get all the tools, servers, EVERYTHING, all in one neat place.

    Just wanted to let you know.

    How's that for shilling Smiley

  • User profile image
    figuerres

    JasonOlson wrote:
    Here's my opinion, there is NO doom and gloom ahead for Vista's licensing. In the end, you have to remember that us geeks are in the MINORITY of all computer users. The number of non-geek people I know that have actually _read_ the EULA I could count on a single hand (and, technically, I could count using my entire arms as digits (heck, I only need two bits to describe the number of people)).

    How many non-techies are going to upgrade their machine more than once? Many of my family members that I play tech support for have never put a single extra component into their machines, EVER. The number of people that are upgrading their motherboard twice or more while running Vista will be pretty minimal.

    As for virtualized environments, I would love to make a comment, but I technically can't. Just read the license carefully. The basic, common-sense "you can't have this installed and running at the same time on different machines" applies (DISCLAIMER: this is just my opinion and NOT the opinions of my employer, I can't stress that enough!!!!).

    So, in the end I would wrap it up by saying Geeks are Geeks and Geeks are the minority. These "restrictions" are not going to impact your average computer user out there in the least. And, besides (as much as I HATE to admit it (because I think it's STUPID)), the majority of Vista licenses in the beginning are going to be coming from the OEMs that package Vista on their pre-built computers, NOT from users out there in the wild upgrading.

    There's no reason to cry foul and to say "IT'S THE END! IT'S THE END! YOU ARE LOSING USERS! YOU WILL DIE!!!!", because you just come off as sounding like Chicken Little. Just repeat to yourself: we are the minority, we are the minority, ad nauseum.


    True: 99% of users just buy a box and run it till it dies or they buy a new one.

    and for devs MSDN helps....

    I can see my self buying possibly 2 full copies of vista thouhg for my current machines -- just so that I can clean install them and such.

  • User profile image
    stevo_

    How does this help Microsoft? sounds like complete cow sh^% to me, I buy a version of Vista and regardless if I upgrade my computer every 6 months, its MY COMPUTER.

    If Microsoft think I'm going to buy a new Vista licence each time I change enough hardware- they must be nuts. What if my computer self combusts and I need to buy another- I have to spend £100 or something to buy Windows Vista again? that takes the piss- I'll go and buy ducking Visual Studio, Adobe Creative suite each time as well shall I?

    I can't see any reason to limit users other than greed.

  • User profile image
    JasonOlson

    stevo_ wrote:
    How does this help Microsoft? sounds like complete cow sh^% to me, I buy a version of Vista and regardless if I upgrade my computer every 6 months, its MY COMPUTER.

    If Microsoft think I'm going to buy a new Vista licence each time I change enough hardware- they must be nuts. What if my computer self combusts and I need to buy another- I have to spend £100 or something to buy Windows Vista again? that takes the piss- I'll go and buy ducking Visual Studio, Adobe Creative suite each time as well shall I?

    I can't see any reason to limit users other than greed.


    In the end, I see it as an anti-piracy issue (I'm not saying this is "the right thing" to do). Think about it from a computer programming perspective. If I allow one person to reinstall it on different machines (and active that copy), this becomes very difficult from an algorithm perspective. As soon as the computer changes enough to be recognized as a different computer, it becomes nearly impossible.

    Once the computer changes enough to be recognized as a different computer, there is no way for me (the algorithm) to tell whether it truly is a different computer or not. Also, there's not way for me to guarantee that it is even "the same person" installing the software. For all I know, it is fifteen different users installing the OS on fifteen different machines, all using the same key. It's sad, but it's a statement of the state of the industry right now that we have to worry about things like this.

    So, in the end, it's not really MS screwing you, it's all the people pirating Windows that screw you (also, hence the addition of "Windows Genuine Advantage" (which I have absolutely _no problem_ with since I _do_ have a legal copy on Windows and find absolutely no problem proving so to get software)).

    Also, us Geeks need to learn to not get our underwear in such a bunch sometimes Tongue Out. This restricted licensing will maybe affect 0.001% of our users. Why would you hurt your bottom line by changing your licensing to help the EXCEPTION to the rule? It's just not smart business sense.

    Besides, the arguments against the licensing model stating "what if my motherboard or CPU crashes and I have to replace it" it utter rubbish. If your CPU crashes and you ahve to replace it (let's say it happens twice), you simply call the number on the screen, explain your situation, and MS will activate your OS for you. I have done this in the past and it's not a problem.

    Honestly, when looking at the majority of who our user base is, I don't see a legitimate concern.

    Remember, calm down, take a deep breath, and think through this with a level head. I know all of us geeks can get very passionate at the drop of a hat, we overfocus. After all, it is this overfocusing that makes all of us such great geeks Tongue Out.

  • User profile image
    stevo_

    My argument is that this doesn't help Microsoft- the people who want to pirate the OS are the people who are going to bypass this kind of thing, and you can't say its not breakable- wasn't XP unbreakable? first few years of its life were plagued with pirating- and I don't think its faded off now because its 'secured' more that XP has saturated the market- everyone in the world must own XP now- legally or not.

    End of the day, I'm sure they are well within their right to 'protect' their software- but I think its just done in twatish way- quickly without much thought about the innocent user. Saying that- if the next version of Windows is out within 2-3 years it's unlikely this will effect me because I pretty much create a new machine every 1.5 years.. I just can't believe if something goes wrong during that time that I'm expected to go and buy Windows again... that would just give me a sour taste and who can I blame BUT Microsoft in that event?

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.