Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New MSFT license provision may force Windows users to buy extra licenses
Linux and Main ^ | August 22, 2K2 | Staff

Posted on 08/23/2002 7:23:27 PM PDT by rdb3

New MSFT license provision may force Windows users to buy extra licenses
Posted on Thursday, August 22 @ 19:50:20 EDT by staff

News When is an operating system license not an operating system license?

When it's a Microsoft "Volume Licensing Program" license, apparently.

According to a new mailing being sent by the convicted monopolist, even those who pay Microsoft for membership in its bulk licensing program do not get "full" licenses for Windows. It's part of the company's latest push to force original equipment manufacturers to preload Windows.

"Some customers believe they can acquire full operating system licenses through their Microsoft Volume Licensing Program," reads a section labeled "Myth."

"Full operating system licenses are not available through any Microsoft Volume Licensing Program," the mailing continues, in a section labeled "Fact."

The part of the card which contains these sections is headed "The Bare Facts About Selling PCs Without Preinstalled Operating Systems."

The flier's contents can be found on Microsoft's Web site as well.

And the reason the "myth" exists may be because it is what Microsoft says in its Volume Licensing Program literature. For instance, a document covering Microsoft's "Enterprise Agreement" Volume Licensing Program, the company says:

"Enterprise Agreement offers a flexible way to standardize your company on the following enterprise platform of Microsoft products:
Microsoft Office Professional
Microsoft Windows Professional Desktop Upgrade
Microsoft Core Client Access License (CAL)"

And in a document for another Microsoft Volume Licensing Program, "Open License," the company refers to the covered software in its Appendix A:

"Product Pool

"Microsoft software programs fall under one of the following three product pools:

"1.Applications : Examples of Microsoft applications include Microsoft Office, Microsoft Visio®, and Microsoft Project. Developer tools and utilities, such as Microsoft Visual Studio® are also part of the Microsoft applications pool.

"2.Systems : Examples of Microsoft desktop operating system software programs are Microsoft Windows® 2000 Professional.

"3.Servers : Examples of Microsoft server software programs are Microsoft Exchange 2000 Server, Microsoft SQL Server 2000, and Windows 2000 Server."

From this, a prospective customer might conclude that operating systems are indeed involved. But Microsoft now says that this is a "myth".

"Sounds like they're pulling another fast one," says an official with one OEM, who asked that his name not be used out of fear of retaliation. "Have you seen how they're changing licenses and not telling anyone? Look at the OEM license. Or the current fixpack."

Indeed, the current Microsoft OEM license agreement contains this paragraph (in which Microsoft is referred to as "Microsoft," while the OEM is called "Company"):

"1.2 Microsoft reserves the right to revise this Agreement at any time. Notification may be posted online, or sent via email or postal mail to the address provided by Company during registration ('Registration') or as updated by Company. Company's continued use of any Account after such notification shall constitute Company's acceptance of this Agreement as revised." In short, putting any changes in the license agreement on the Web someplace in Microsoft's view is all the notification necessary, and if the OEM buys from Microsoft after the posting without finding, reading, and agreeing to the change, that's tough luck for the OEM.

Nor is that the only place where this policy is being employed. The End-User License Agreement with the "security" update to Windows Media Player in June contained this provision:

"Digital Rights Management (Security). You agree that in order to protect the integrity of content and software protected by digital rights management ('Secure Content), Microsoft may provide security related updates to the OS Components that will be automatically downloaded onto your computer. These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and use other software on your computer. If we provide such a security update, we will use reasonable efforts to post notices on a web site explaining the update."

Robert X. Cringely summed it up: "Wait a minute! Did you just give Microsoft the right to go inside your computer and change pretty much anything they like even if it disables applications from other vendors -- applications you paid good money for? And if they do mess with the inside of your computer they don't have to ask permission or do anything except post an explanation on some web site somewhere?" Actually, Cringely may not have noticed the fullness of the "web site" reference. Microsoft did not promise to do so, it said it would "use reasonable efforts" to do so. There are those who would argue that what Microsoft finds reasonable, others may not Among those who don't is the unnamed OEM officer.

"I don't think Microsoft has any ethics or recognizes any law," he said. "This thing in which they are switching, or at least it looks to me like they're switching, the volume purchasing programs -- that's just so typical. They're squeezing everybody, really tightening up. They want to make sure that every computer in the world that is sold has one or more Windows licenses, whether there's Windows on it or not. It's much worse than it was when they made you buy a license for every processor you shipped. They're trying to set it up so that they can come in to your machine or all the machines at your business and make sure that their software is all you're running. Unless the other software you have comes from companies that have paid their tithe to Microsoft. It's worse than it has ever been, and I don't see anything stopping them."

The flyer, he said, is to pressure OEMs to preload Windows on every machine.

"Here are volume buyers who believe they have bought and paid for Windows, and I believe they have, too, but Microsoft wants us to make them buy another license. They want to make it impossible for companies to upgrade hardware and use their existing licenses.

"The PC business is already in a deep recession. Margins have gone down to almost nothing. And now Microsoft comes along and dumps this on us. And they make us be the bad guy."

What is the alternative?

"There isn't one, unless everyone all of a sudden switches to Linux or something. If you look at the licensing tricks they're trying to pull, you very quickly understand that there is nothing they wouldn't do to make a buck. That and gain control."



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Miscellaneous; Technical
KEYWORDS: microsoft; oem; volumelicensing
To be sure, this is nothing new. IIRC, Gates was on with Neil Cavuto talking about home computers having to have more than one license to lawfully operate a Windows OS. This was right about the time when XP debuted.

One would think that PR would make MS consider its tactics. Only time will tell.

1 posted on 08/23/2002 7:23:27 PM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: John Robinson; B Knotts; stainlessbanner; TechJunkYard; ShadowAce; Knitebane; AppyPappy; jae471; ...
The Penguin Ping.

Want on or off? Just holla!


2 posted on 08/23/2002 7:25:10 PM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
In contrast to Microsoft's licensing schemes, Apple introduced the Mac OS X 10.2 Family Pack this week for $199 -

Family Pack Software License Agreement allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on up to a maximum of five (5) Apple-labeled computers at a time as long as those computers are located in the same household and used by persons who occupy that same household. By "household" we mean a person or persons sharing the same housing unit such as a home, apartment, mobile home or condominium. This license does not extend to students who reside at a separate on-campus location or to business or commercial users.

3 posted on 08/23/2002 7:45:28 PM PDT by HAL9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
It is a a short hop from being the wonderful guy who put a Model T in every garage to the robber baron that abuses labor. It is a short fall from 90 percent of the car business in the world to about a third of the car business. But that is the fall Ford took in the 1920s.

Today things are not the same as they were for the Ford monopoly of the auto industry of 1915. Monopolys can not exist with out governments to enforce them. When the monopoly starts to mistreat customers, as they always do, the customers go to someone else. Only if Gates is able to use the government to enforce his monopoly can he hold his place. What the world needs is a Windows clone. A UNIX clone will not do it. The Chevie defeated Ford, because if you could drive a Ford, you could drive a Chevie. If the Ford ran on road, the Chevie would run on the same road. But being able to run Windows dosen't mean you can run LINUX. And a network highway that runs windows has to dance the Samba well to work with LINUX. Most guys can't dance well at all.

Windows in not uncloneable. But to defeat Gates some one or group will have to do it. UNIX is a much more complete and complex operating system than Windows. Linus Torvalds, when he was a just a college student, cloned the UNIX kernel. He called it LINUX. He did it while he was a full time student in college.

Windows could be cloned more easily than UNIX. The problem of taking down Gates, is the people are trying to do it with a UNIX clone. A UNIX clone will take down Sun Microsystems UNIX but it will not take down Bill Gates' Windows. It will take a windows clone to do that.

When someone clones windows and sells it at a lower price and in addition operates his business with a more customer friendly attitude, Gates monopoly will be history.

UNIX is being taken down by a UNIX clone named LINUX. Windows will have to be taken down with a Windows clone.


4 posted on 08/23/2002 8:12:06 PM PDT by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
Ford did not fall from dominance of the auto market because it was a monopoly that used strong arm tactics. It fell because they insisted on sticking with their standard product (the black model T) in spite of the fact that consumers were demanding variety in style. Chevrolet offered it and became a giant as a result.

If that is the model, then Microsoft is in fine shape. Consumers like their software. They want their software. Microsoft is, in most consumer's mind, required on their computers. I love Linux but I don't see it taking over in the consumer/business market until there is some "killer app" that it offers and which Microsoft cant or wont offer. Then consumers may demand it. It's time the Linux community started shifting focus from OS stability and performance to ingenious applications (not just emulators of windows apps and scientifinc stuff but rather something that you just dont see in Windows, preferrably something that Windows cannot easily do).

5 posted on 08/23/2002 8:35:09 PM PDT by pepsi_junkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
More and more, I think this was all part of the grand vision.

For many years, Microsoft turned a blind eye to unauthorized copying, and their market share (both official and unofficial) grew. They waited and waited, until they had successfully driven all their competition out of the market, and now they seek to collect from all the suckers that fell victim to Windows dominance.

I can't say I blame them. I blame the suckers who couldn't see that alternatives were needed, and that a competitive market is best, instead greedily grabbing their "warez" just to play some stupid game.

6 posted on 08/23/2002 9:01:56 PM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pepsi_junkie
Buy a Macintosh, it just works.
7 posted on 08/23/2002 9:06:39 PM PDT by drjoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
What is the alternative?

"There isn't one, unless everyone all of a sudden switches to Linux or something."


I've gone with "or something" and I'm really happy with it.
8 posted on 08/23/2002 9:37:14 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
UNIX is being taken down by a UNIX clone named LINUX. Windows will have to be taken down with a Windows clone.

Piffle.

For one, most people don't care what OS they use. They want access to their data they way they always have access to it.

They want to use their email, browse the web, write documents, put data into spreadsheets and databases, and share files over the network.

Linux with KDE or Gnome already provides mail clients, browsers, word processors, spreadsheets, databases and NFS, CIFS/Samba, Novell and Mac network access. KDE with the Redmond 95 theme is almost indistinguishable from Windows. For the hard core power Word or Excel users, those applications can be run today using Wine.

To use your analogy, a user with a Linux desktop outfitted with Wine, MS Office, Evolution and Mozilla can access all of the same data that a user can access using Windows. That is, they can drive their data down the same roads.

Most of the comparible Linux apps use the same controls as their Windows counterparts. Evolutions is eerily like Outlook. There is a theme for Mozilla that makes it so much like IE that only viewing the Help function lets you know that it's not IE. Except for the crashes, of course.

Secondly, a company attempting to clone Windows would be met with a massive PR/Legal attack from Microsoft, quickly burying the company under the onslaught.

Look at what happened to Lindows, and it isn't even a Windows clone. If the maker of Lindows didn't have money to burn from his sale of MP3.com, it would have been still-born.

There is little doubt, except among the hard-core "nothing-but-Microsoft" shills, that Linux is technically superior to Windows. But for Linux to succeed, that's not enough.

The key for any company to succeed with a desktop OS is to keep Microsoft from using it's monopoly power to force OEMs to load Windows on every desktop.

Microsoft knows this, that's why they've been trying so hard to do just that. I thought that the article that started this thread pointed that out quite well.

9 posted on 08/24/2002 12:30:22 AM PDT by Knitebane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
I've gone with "or something" and I'm really happy with it.

I bet you are.

10 posted on 08/24/2002 3:57:21 AM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: drjoe
Buy a Macintosh, it just works.

Have you tried Jaguar?

Zoom zoom zoom.

11 posted on 08/24/2002 3:59:07 AM PDT by Glenn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
UNIX is being taken down by a UNIX clone named LINUX. Windows will have to be taken down with a Windows clone.

That logic is absurd and idiotic. It's the same as saying :DEMOCRAP is being taken down by a DEMOCRAP clone named REPUBLICRAT. So liberals will have to be taken down with a liberal clone.

Sheer idiocy, you defeat a bad idea with a BETTER idea and a bad product is replaced by a BETTER product.

12 posted on 08/24/2002 4:10:10 AM PDT by Cacique
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
Windows will have to be taken down with a Windows clone.

Wrong. I'm reading this on a Red Hat 7.3 KDE system using Mozilla, instead of my Win98 system with IE 5.5. Why? KDE is more than sufficient for my purposes, and it doesn't come with Microsoft's obnoxious, noxious and fundamentally dishonest policies as noted in this article.

There are a few Win-based apps I still use, and I'm slowly moving them over to run under Wine. For me, RH7.3 crossed the threshold of preference.

I don't need, or want, a "clone" of Windoze. I do need, and want, similar functionality. Just as some friends prefer Macs to WinPCs, I'm finding I am beginning to prefer LinPCs to WinPCs.

And Microsoft has only itself to thank for this.

Eala: a Linux user in Redmond, WA.

13 posted on 08/24/2002 9:07:06 AM PDT by Eala
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Glenn
See post 10. So you like Jaguar? I got my G4 a couple of months ago and don't know if I want to screw around with Jaguar. Is it that much better than the last edition of OSX?
14 posted on 08/24/2002 9:08:54 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
It has significant speed improvements. Especially in rendering. I'm running it on a G4 Titanium Powerbook as are two office mates. It's an easy install. I'd say it's worth it.
15 posted on 08/24/2002 9:13:23 AM PDT by Glenn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
Windows will have to be taken down with a Windows clone.

You mean like when Gates Cloned CP/M and called it MS-DOS. Or like when he Cloned OS/2 and called it Windows. Or like when he Cloned Netscape and called it IE. Or..... Well you get the point.

16 posted on 08/25/2002 5:35:03 AM PDT by amigatec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Eala
I'm reading this on a Red Hat 7.3 KDE system using Mozilla, instead of my Win98 system with IE 5.5. Why? KDE is more than sufficient for my purposes, and it doesn't come with Microsoft's obnoxious, noxious and fundamentally dishonest policies as noted in this article. There are a few Win-based apps I still use, and I'm slowly moving them over to run under Wine. For me, RH7.3 crossed the threshold of preference.

Try OSX. It's much better than desktop Linux. Chimera (COCOA browser based on Mozilla rendering engine) owns regular Mozilla. It is so much faster on my G3 desktop (Blue and White G3 350 soon to be G4500). BeOS aside, there is no geekier OS than OSX. It might as well be called NeXTSTEP 5.1.5/5.2

17 posted on 08/25/2002 7:00:14 AM PDT by dheretic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson