- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Court Upholds End-User License Agreements
|
|
|
Comments (28)
if you read this using your left eye you owe me money
Stupid stupid stupid. EULAs are unilateral, non-negotiable, and not discoverable until after purchase, and there is zero vendor responsibility for defects, truthfulness, or functionality. They are completely customer-hostile. In a sane country they would be laughed out of court.
Wait a second Carla..I patented reading with your left eye last year so its you that owes me money...;-)
I'd like to see the judges' stock portfolios.
I'm going to patent reading, that'll fix the lot o' ye!
If EULAs are legally enforceable, then the refund section is as well.
> If EULAs are legally enforceable, then the refund section is as well.
I don't think a refund section is necessary. Not a refund on the OS, but on the entire computer system. My understanding (from many years ago) is that the EULA would not be valid without the option for a refund.
That is why Microsoft explicitly includes the refund section. You can't sell a computer, then when the consumer gets home, say, "Oh by the way, all of these additional conditions apply. If you don't accept them, you can't use the computer we said we were selling you." I suppose that it is possible the retailer might be obligated to provide you with some compensation for your time if you return the whole system.
I don't think a refund section is necessary. Not a refund on the OS, but on the entire computer system. My understanding (from many years ago) is that the EULA would not be valid without the option for a refund.
That is why Microsoft explicitly includes the refund section. You can't sell a computer, then when the consumer gets home, say, "Oh by the way, all of these additional conditions apply. If you don't accept them, you can't use the computer we said we were selling you." I suppose that it is possible the retailer might be obligated to provide you with some compensation for your time if you return the whole system.
Tying the OS to the hardware is a slimy move MS has been trying to cement into law for years. You might recall their recent move to make bare computers without an OS installed not tax-deductible, their attacks on schools and other organizations using donated used computers, their lock on Tier 1 vendors who still charge their customers for a Windows license whether they want one or not, and their nasty OEM Windowses that are tied to the original system they are sold on, and that cannot be moved to another PC. We have to maintain a firm separation between software and hardware, and that includes refunds for software apart from the hardware.
Speaking of tying hardware to software and ...
Recently I was slumming in some Windows IRC channel and found a posted discussion on direct vs dynamic partitions. Someone bought a laptop with Win7 on it and decided he wanted to dual boot the computer with Linux. Nightmare ensued...it was dynamically partitioned.
Dynamic partitions as they exist will not allow dual booting anything without damaging the existing system. Of course you can buy specific Windows software to do it at about 40 bucks...what? Here's a bit about getting it done using said software, and more importantly, some of the restrictions on doing so.
Bet the EULA doesn't say anything about that...just guessing.
http://www.partition-tool.com/buy.htm
What is Dynamic Disk?
A dynamic disk is a physical disk that provides features that basic disks do not, such as support for volumes spanning multiple disks. Dynamic disks use a hidden database to track information about dynamic volumes on the disk and other dynamic disks in the computer. A disk managed by a software RAID provider with support for flexible volume reconfiguration. A dynamic disk uses a partition as a container for volumes; there is no guaranteed mapping. What is the dynamic volume resizing limitation in Disk Management?
Before Windows Vista, you cannot resize dynamic disk conveniently, you can only extend dynamic volume in Disk Management. Moreover, following operations are even impossible.
1. Extend System Volume/Boot Volume.
2. Expand Mirrored Volume.
3. Increase Striped Volume.
4. Extend RAID5 Volume.
5. Extend the Simple Volume which was converted from the basic disk of Windows XP/2003 that was upgraded from Windows 2000.
Some conspiracy types will say that these are provided to discourage dual booting. Someone I trust anticipates that future EULAs will make it illegal to "tamper" with partition structures. I'm not sure I can get on board with that but then again, I can imagine MS smugness in recognizing the inadvertent road block. It all goes back to "if you don't own the software on your computer, do you really own your computer?"
h
Recently I was slumming in some Windows IRC channel and found a posted discussion on direct vs dynamic partitions. Someone bought a laptop with Win7 on it and decided he wanted to dual boot the computer with Linux. Nightmare ensued...it was dynamically partitioned.
Dynamic partitions as they exist will not allow dual booting anything without damaging the existing system. Of course you can buy specific Windows software to do it at about 40 bucks...what? Here's a bit about getting it done using said software, and more importantly, some of the restrictions on doing so.
Bet the EULA doesn't say anything about that...just guessing.
http://www.partition-tool.com/buy.htm
What is Dynamic Disk?
A dynamic disk is a physical disk that provides features that basic disks do not, such as support for volumes spanning multiple disks. Dynamic disks use a hidden database to track information about dynamic volumes on the disk and other dynamic disks in the computer. A disk managed by a software RAID provider with support for flexible volume reconfiguration. A dynamic disk uses a partition as a container for volumes; there is no guaranteed mapping. What is the dynamic volume resizing limitation in Disk Management?
Before Windows Vista, you cannot resize dynamic disk conveniently, you can only extend dynamic volume in Disk Management. Moreover, following operations are even impossible.
1. Extend System Volume/Boot Volume.
2. Expand Mirrored Volume.
3. Increase Striped Volume.
4. Extend RAID5 Volume.
5. Extend the Simple Volume which was converted from the basic disk of Windows XP/2003 that was upgraded from Windows 2000.
Some conspiracy types will say that these are provided to discourage dual booting. Someone I trust anticipates that future EULAs will make it illegal to "tamper" with partition structures. I'm not sure I can get on board with that but then again, I can imagine MS smugness in recognizing the inadvertent road block. It all goes back to "if you don't own the software on your computer, do you really own your computer?"
h
In other words, M$ once again played "catch up" with *nix, and implemented Volume Management.
(Insert your favorite TOS-violating phrase here.)
(Insert your favorite TOS-violating phrase here.)
Wanna bet it's LVM? The LVM license is very liberal:
http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#license
http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#license
Quoting:We intend to keep LLVM perpetually open source and to use a liberal open source license. The current license is the University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License, which boils down to this:
* You can freely distribute LLVM. * You must retain the copyright notice if you redistribute LLVM. * Binaries derived from LLVM must reproduce the copyright notice (e.g. in an included readme file). * You can't use our names to promote your LLVM derived products. * There's no warranty on LLVM at all.
We believe this fosters the widest adoption of LLVM because it allows commercial products to be derived from LLVM with few restrictions and without a requirement for making any derived works also open source
Huh? You're talking about the Low-Level Virtual Machine, not the Logical Volume Manager.
On the other hand, shrinking a software-RAID-0 array on Linux isn't possible either, as far as I know.
Yes, it is. For example:
--two physical volumes (PV's), 60GB and 80GB, in RAID 0, in one volume group "vg0" --two logical volumes (LV's), 30GB and 20GB, in "vg0"
Either PV could be removed from vg0, without compromising the data. As long as there is enough room in the VG to hold all the LV's, it's simply a matter of shuffling the extents.
The same is true for btrfs volume management: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Using_Btrfs_with_Mul...
--two physical volumes (PV's), 60GB and 80GB, in RAID 0, in one volume group "vg0" --two logical volumes (LV's), 30GB and 20GB, in "vg0"
Either PV could be removed from vg0, without compromising the data. As long as there is enough room in the VG to hold all the LV's, it's simply a matter of shuffling the extents.
The same is true for btrfs volume management: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Using_Btrfs_with_Mul...
Either PV could be removed from vg0, without compromising the data.
Oh yeah? Give me a shot at it.
;-)
Oh yeah? Give me a shot at it.
;-)
@helios: Check the pvmove(8) man page.
gus3: That might explain it!
I was using mdraid, not LVM - to do the RAID-thing. Then there's an LVM-container on top of my /dev/md0 (basically, the container is md0). But maybe such a setup is senseless, I'm not sure.
I had a RAID 0 array spanning 4 disks, 320Gb total with about 120G used (data). One disk had a "faulty" connector corrupting the disk from time to time, so I wanted to "remove" it, and redivide the 120G over the 3 working disks. But I didn't find out how to do so, but of course I might be the one to blame, like most of the times. So I bought a 250Gb external disk, made a backup to it, removed the faulty disk, and simply repartitioned the 3 working disks again.
Anyway, now I've hijacked the threat: Is LVM striping an alternative for mdraid? Once I tried to find out, but I'm not sure anymore.
I was using mdraid, not LVM - to do the RAID-thing. Then there's an LVM-container on top of my /dev/md0 (basically, the container is md0). But maybe such a setup is senseless, I'm not sure.
I had a RAID 0 array spanning 4 disks, 320Gb total with about 120G used (data). One disk had a "faulty" connector corrupting the disk from time to time, so I wanted to "remove" it, and redivide the 120G over the 3 working disks. But I didn't find out how to do so, but of course I might be the one to blame, like most of the times. So I bought a 250Gb external disk, made a backup to it, removed the faulty disk, and simply repartitioned the 3 working disks again.
Anyway, now I've hijacked the threat: Is LVM striping an alternative for mdraid? Once I tried to find out, but I'm not sure anymore.
There's also this, from TLDP: http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/removeadisk.html
One thing not pointed out, is that LV striping parameters cannot be modified by "pvmove". That is, you can't turn a 2-stripe RAID0 into a 1-stripe non-RAID. But I can move a non-RAID LV back and forth between to PV's all day, and the data is none the worse off.
I did tinker once with the mdraid tools, back in 2002. It's a much more manual process. LVM2 is practically self-administering, if you don't mind a generic setup. It's even possible to create a LUKS volume on an LV (I just did).
One thing not pointed out, is that LV striping parameters cannot be modified by "pvmove". That is, you can't turn a 2-stripe RAID0 into a 1-stripe non-RAID. But I can move a non-RAID LV back and forth between to PV's all day, and the data is none the worse off.
I did tinker once with the mdraid tools, back in 2002. It's a much more manual process. LVM2 is practically self-administering, if you don't mind a generic setup. It's even possible to create a LUKS volume on an LV (I just did).
Quoting:Wait a second Carla..I patented reading with your left eye last year so its you that owes me money...;-I've got you beat, Scott. I've got a patent pending for reading with both eyes. When it gets approved all you people who have two eyes and use them both will be paying me royalties.
So, I will have to read with my right eye the coming decade I guess?
Maybe it's time to learn Braille.
Maybe it's time to learn Braille.
Caveat emptor.......
At least with FOSS and the GPL you know exactly what you can and cannot do. EULA's are possibly the same in that regard (although I haven't looked at one for years), but the fact that the USA courts have agreed that they are legally binding agreements and that you must comply with their requirements does not surprise me in the slightest.
There are however, at least two conditions that concern me deeply about the EULA's which are:
1. The EULA extends for page after page in legalistic jargon that means nothing to the average individual. In other words, you are being asked to agree to a document you do not understand without a legal background and even then possibly a few hours of study. Most consumers "sign away their rights" without ever knowing it simply because they don't have the expertise or the time.....and the companies get away with it.
2. You automatically agree to the EULA if you open the packet......or, in the case of Microsoft, an even more insidious and disgusting little move which equates to the same thing, but is done electronically (saves paper of course). I met this one recently when I purchased a laptop with Microsoft pre-loaded. Out of sheer curiousity I told it to install, but you could not even begin the installation and thereby manage to view the EULA until you agreed that you accepted it in full. These agreements take away consumer rights in my view - oh, and I did NOT accept the EULA and just formatted the entire drive. This however disturbs me greatly. How can you agree to a written document unless you read it ? So you must open the packet to read the EULA or agree to its conditions in advance in order to read the document.....It's classic legal catch-22.
I may be barking up the wrong tree here because it is so long since I have been personally exposed to these unpleasant documents, however conditions may have changed so I welcome any updates to my concepts.
There are however, at least two conditions that concern me deeply about the EULA's which are:
1. The EULA extends for page after page in legalistic jargon that means nothing to the average individual. In other words, you are being asked to agree to a document you do not understand without a legal background and even then possibly a few hours of study. Most consumers "sign away their rights" without ever knowing it simply because they don't have the expertise or the time.....and the companies get away with it.
2. You automatically agree to the EULA if you open the packet......or, in the case of Microsoft, an even more insidious and disgusting little move which equates to the same thing, but is done electronically (saves paper of course). I met this one recently when I purchased a laptop with Microsoft pre-loaded. Out of sheer curiousity I told it to install, but you could not even begin the installation and thereby manage to view the EULA until you agreed that you accepted it in full. These agreements take away consumer rights in my view - oh, and I did NOT accept the EULA and just formatted the entire drive. This however disturbs me greatly. How can you agree to a written document unless you read it ? So you must open the packet to read the EULA or agree to its conditions in advance in order to read the document.....It's classic legal catch-22.
I may be barking up the wrong tree here because it is so long since I have been personally exposed to these unpleasant documents, however conditions may have changed so I welcome any updates to my concepts.
refunds
So this means Microsoft HAS to give the refunds if you dont agree? Getting a refund should be made easier for end users!
Except that AFAIR refunds are no longer in the EULA (they might be in a higher-order legal act, but I guess if the EULA says "no refunds", then this decision makes them disappear too.)
IANAL etc.
IANAL etc.
They will just sluff it off on the manufacturer like they always do..
Posted this in another thread:
I don't think a refund section is necessary. Not a refund on the OS, but on the entire computer system. My understanding (from many years ago) is that the EULA would not be valid without the option for a refund.
That is why Microsoft explicitly includes the refund section. You can't sell a computer, then when the consumer gets home, say, "Oh by the way, all of these additional conditions apply. If you don't accept them, you can't use the computer we said we were selling you." I suppose that it is possible the retailer might be obligated to provide you with some compensation for your time if you return the whole system.
I don't think a refund section is necessary. Not a refund on the OS, but on the entire computer system. My understanding (from many years ago) is that the EULA would not be valid without the option for a refund.
That is why Microsoft explicitly includes the refund section. You can't sell a computer, then when the consumer gets home, say, "Oh by the way, all of these additional conditions apply. If you don't accept them, you can't use the computer we said we were selling you." I suppose that it is possible the retailer might be obligated to provide you with some compensation for your time if you return the whole system.
But again, there's my own special case: I never saw, hence never agreed to, a EULA. There was no print version, and I never saw one on the screen. So, if there's a defect in the hardware, while the system would normally still be under warranty, why should I be denied repairs simply because I hadn't agreed to a "hardware AND software, or neither" contract?
Sharp doesn't offer guarantee if you tinker with the software of your combi-microwave, do they?
I have to open the microwave, ignoring the "no user serviceable parts inside" warning (and probably breaking a seal in the process).
I never saw any warning, on screen or on paper, saying I wasn't allowed to replace the OS.
I never saw any warning, on screen or on paper, saying I wasn't allowed to replace the OS.
Seal the computer: Good advice for Microsoft and the OEM's!
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post