We need to push for the right of "ownership" instead of a "license" to use software. I pay good money for products, some of which die if you don't renew contracts or they become crippled. It's no better if they change file formats every release to trap you, granted, but at least you can use what you own if you don't need to share files.

Yes, piracy is a problem, but these companies and their policies will push people to OpenSource and cheaper alternatives. Inexpensive, but high-quality software could make some inroads.

Database servers, CAD/rendering software, and other high-end products are one problem -- but to lock my OS is even worse.

No more EULA garbage. I pay, I should own something. Even as a programmer, I feel that if I sell something, I shouldn't restrict using old copies of code or where the new code runs. Just ticks me off... and MS or Apple, it's still stupid to limit where my OS is installed if I paid for it.

I believe Microsoft is cutting off there own head in doing stupid stunts like this. If people have bought a legal copy of Vista then it should work on any PC, virtual or not. No wonder why the latest poll shows 67% will stick with a Mac or go to Mac soon and only 8% are actually going out to purchase Vista.
It sucks along with there EULA as there are to many limitations. And why for pete sake is Microsoft killing legal licenses of XP when installing Vista? Another rip off!

Maybe we can the Norwegian Ombudsman on this case

bothered

OK peops... The question at hand is not whether the government needs to regulate terms of EULAs or whether license/own is the right way to go. Those have been answered long ago. The real question is whether this term of the contract is enforceable. So before getting in an uproar:

(1) Has anyone tested whether you can actually run Vista Home in Parallels? Does the software itself preclude it?

(2) Has anyone tested whether you can actually run Microsoft DRM or BitLocker in Parallels? Does the software itself preclude it?

This little paragraph puts a very large onus of responsibility on the end user. Definitely too large for the average user, considering how easy Parallels makes it to run the Mac and Windows side by side. My Mom is doing it, ferchrisakes, because she needs to run embroidery software that is Windows only.

I would bet that Microsoft wants the ability at some future point to use a TPM to ensure that certain secure features are indeed secure, and that the above paragraph is more about that than about ruining our fun with legal mumbo jumbo. So when those features won't work in Parallels or other VM, they're not on the hook to support it. They won't be suing anyone for running Vista in Parallels and they won't be suing Parallels for not going out of its way to enforce its license agreement. Really, they can't win on those because the paragraph is unenforceable except by software!

To add a little more perspective... Anyone follow baseball? Barry Bonds just signed a contract with the Giants that lets the Giants off the hook totally if he's indicted. Bonds' agent has already publicly said that the provision is unenforceable because the collective bargaining agreement takes precedence. This kind of "negotiation" in written and signed contracts happens all the time, and it will happen in EULAs as companies try to define their rights as technology continues to change. EULAs are one way Microsoft speaks to the market. The market may speak back. That paragraph will most definitely be refined and adjusted in time. But we need to figure out what it really means when the bits hit the RAM before reacting too strongly.

I don't know if "ownership" is possible, since the existing framework for copyright law puts "ownership" of the intellectual property in the hands of the individual who creates it (or transferred to the company that produces it).

I.e. if I create a song, book, or program, I "own" it, and can determine who I let copy it, listen to it, or create derivative works based on it. Or I can transfewr ownership to another individual or corporation who then "owns" it in the same way.

Since copyright law exists both locally and as part of an international treaty, it may not be possible to change the definition of "ownership" in the way required.

That said, there really should be some consumer rights and expansion of Fair Use principals to deal with the realities of digital distribution and increasingly restrictive licensing agreements that encroach on those rights of Fair Use. Independence of the content from the media for personal use would be a nice touch (i.e. the right to back up software, scan photos or paintings, burn a DVD to digital, or copy song from CD to computer or tape).

A set of guidelines as to what software can and cannot restrict would also be benefit, but the devil would certainly be in the details for something this complex.

http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxmac/

I am confused. Sure Microsoft's license says one thing. How, however, can Microsoft control what users choose to do? If I install Vista using Boot-camp, how will Vista know what it is running on? Moreover, since the newer version of Parallels allows users to use the Boot-camp install of Vista, how will Windows know it is running through Virtualizatin?

Finally, I suspect Microsoft will get in trouble with these types of limitations. After-all, it is trying again to force users to adopt its technology, namely its DRM. Make no mistake, Microsoft is aiming at Fairplay. It will be interesting to see how iTune's Fairplay runs on Vista.

Also, under copyright law, it would be Fair-use for me to use a copy of Vista that I legally acquired in Virutalization. Microsoft's license can say otherwise all day, but the Fair-use doctrine trumps Microsoft's license.

Why are you even paying for it? I don't pay for M$ software. Their veiled threats mean nothing to me, bring it on.

What about software that is licensed per CPU? Is anyone complaining about that? M$ is not trying to screw you guys. They are responding to changes in the marketplace. When XP shipped, virtualization was small. Now, tons of companies have huge farms of virtual servers. A single machine can be so powerful that they run many Windows VMs at once and each acts as an independent server. If the OS is licensed per physical machine, then MS is getting kinda screwed don't you think? If it was you, would you NOT change your license structure? By changing the EULA, large companies will have to hold a valid OS license for each server they are running should they wish to have license compliance. And for large companies having such compliance is important. So, like I said, M$ is not trying to screw you. They are protecting their corporate revenue stream.

Quote

KitsuneStudios wrote:
I don't know if "ownership" is possible, since the existing framework for copyright law puts "ownership" of the intellectual property in the hands of the individual who creates it (or transferred to the company that produces it).

IMO it seems like that is the crux of the problem. If I design an appliance and sell it, the buyer owns the appliance, or car or airplane or whatever. Because software is coded with letters numbers and symbols the law views it as a copyrightable work, just like a book or a song. But literature does not run. Literature does not operate and affect its environment. You read a book, watch a movie, or listen or play a song, but the work is somewhat intert on its own. I think that the law has to change to reflect that a computer program is a machine just like an engine, or a processor chip. Yes I start a program just like start a motor, but after that it's running.
Changing the law to view software as machines that are patented might resolve many of these issues.
My 2 cents anyway

On updates, my understanding is that invalidating the previous license is pretty normal. You don't buy a new license with a discount because you happen to own a previous one: you transfer your right to the new software.

To me, it seems short-sighted of Microsoft to discourage or even disallow (assuming you wanted a Home version) millions of Mac users with Intel processors from buying a copy of Vista. I'd think they would instead want to encourage Mac users to buy a copy so as to increase their market. Perhaps an alternative would have been to license Vista (at least a Home version) per machine whether virtual or real.

Jack

Did MSFT also keep in their license agreement that if you significantly upgrade your machine, then you might need to buy a new license for Vista?

Neal

I run XP in Parallels or Boot Camp rarely and reluctantly, mainly when I'm performing some tech support service for the Windows sufferers in our office.

IMHO, Microsoft can byte me. I paid a chunk of hard-earned moolah for Windows XP, and if Mr. Bill (where's Sluggo when you need him?) thinks that paying for Vista is going to cause me to dump my XP, he's got beans for brains.

This isn't a financial issue for Microsoft, gang. The Redmond Mafia doesn't get a samolean less if you install Windoze on a Mac instead of a Dell. It can't be a money thang, so it must be a p**s on Mac users thang.

Big Bad Bill seems to have a little Jobs-envy, and I can't say that I blame him, especially after the "who cares?" response to Windows users to Vista. It's going to take years for Vista to catch XP - know why? It's because most users won't actually update; they'll simply get Vista pre-installed when they buy a new machine in a year or five.

Anyone notice that Microsoft's stock DROPPED on the day their biggest and baddest OS was released? How's that for market confidence!

I agree. I have no interest in EVER buying Vista. I bought an edu version of XP because it was $40 and I could run quickbooks with it. I am interested in Parallels for it's ability to diss the OS... which IS exactly what Gates is going, and has done forever... especially since buying Virtual PC and burying it.

He's the wrong kind of megolamaniac and companies like M$ and Walmart are in the process of getting their come-uppance.

Viva innovation.

Quote

Edison Carter wrote:
Maybe we can the Norwegian Ombudsman on this case

Being a Norwegian, I am all for it! I am writing several mails to them to ask them whether they're defending my consumer's right every time I am stopped by some Microsoft-crippled site which closes Macusers out - and they're not few in this country where most people think PC is what everyone has and internet is the blue E on their desktops.

Anyway, to me it seems like MS is feeling the heat of Apple's success...

Someone needs to test a home version on Parallels and see if it works or not. What is MS going to do search everyone's homes to see if you are running Vista home on a virtual machine? I don't think there's anyway they can tell. If they can then they have illegally installed a root kit and we can sue there ass.

This is why I like Apple's way of selling operating systems. When Tiger came out I paid full price for it. It did not invalidate my license for Jaguar that I bought. So I can use those Jaguar disks on another machine at the same time I'm using Tiger. I can do this because Apple does not sell "upgrades" You have to buy a retail copy.

I think it's a different situation with the OS that shipped with my machine. It's only licensed for that machine and I can't move it when I install a newer OS. But for a retail copy, I just uninstall it on one machine and then I can install it on another.

Sweet.

Vista is so slose to OS X why bother? XP will com down in price and for the 2 apps I use I don't need their floating crap in another window.
Seems Mr. Bill is very touchy when Vista is compared to Tiger.