[KLUG Advocacy] XP SP1

[Robert G. Brown]

>>>If you thought the XP EULA was bad....
>>Nah, it's not "bad", in some cases (like whole industries and sets of
>>applications) this is just an absolute show-stopper.
>It certainly makes me unhappy.  But lawyers at the SBA are probably
>giggling themselves sick.
These folks (and others) can laugh allthey like, but they're going to 
lose business over this... big hulking broad swaths of it.

>>>Product Activation post SP1 transmits your product key to Redmond, 
>>>where they can "validate" it and accept or decline permission to use
>>>updates, etc...
>>This has been well-known for some time.
>Yes and No.
Yes. Not both, but "yes". People have been complaining about it for
several months....

>WinY2k SP3 grants Microsoft the "right" to enter and
>inspect the software installed on a machine, and perform updates.  
Where rights lead, practical tools will follow. 

>But there is no concrete mechanism to do so.  
and everyone expected a mechanism to be the next step.

>XP SP1 is the first to push information up to Redmond and provide a back 
>channel (assuming of course Internet connectivity and cooperating firewalls).
And now there is one (surprise!).

>>>It installs "technological measures that are designed to prevent 
>>>unlicensed use."
>>Well, it's a bit more extensive than that. In essense you are granting
>>MS the right to enter your system and disable any software installed 
>>thereon, and [I beleive] the are held harmless from any consequences.
>It is the trespass that bothers me.  I'm fine with the "hold harmless"
>applied to software developers, or I can only imagine the mayhem that
>would ensue.
Many people are NOT FINE with the fact that MS would have the right to 
do anything they please to systems, possibly causing real havoc, and not
be held accountable for it.

Trespass? This is more like sack and pillage!

>>This is simply unacceptable in any application where the configuration of
>>the host is certified to consist of known componets (or sets of components)
>>and tested to qualify its behavior and performance.
>It can currently be disabled, the automatic update part anyway,...
Can the components that cause the auto update be removed from the system?
How can this stand and still be in compliance with the EULA?

>the push of verification information appears to be integral.
Today. It's only Tuesday... by the end of the week, there may be other
purposes.

>One would hope common sense exceptions apply like are granted on other
>software packages when used in aviation, nuclear, and other industries.
Adam, you don't answer an FDA or SEC software audit with hopes of common
sense. You answer them with journaled change controls and recods of when
what software components were altered.

>>Signing this into a licence is... I can't think of the words... perhaps 
>>criminal negligence covers it, but I'm not certain.
>I can see no benevolent reason to place such a technology in a service
>pack, or terms in a EULA.
Um... yeah. You are guilty of Churchillian understatement.

>I really can't think of any non-nefarious and conspiritorial reason to 
>take these steps.  The whole piracy thing is a red herring, justification 
>to take unpleasant measures for other purposes.
This is beyond "unpleasent". This is downright intractable, for any activity
that requires certification, or control of the environment.

							Regards,
							---> RGB <---