Or is Microsoft unfairly targeting and discriminating against customers attempting to run Windows programs on Unix and Linux?
Microsoft's Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) program has had its share of critics. But this week, a number of open-source advocates joined the ranks of those questioning Microsoft's methods for thwarting software piracy. On Wednesday, a developer of Wine — an open-source implementation of the Windows application-programming interface that allows Windows applications to run on Unix and Linux — said he discovered that Microsoft's Windows validation tool checks for Wine and generates an error when it is found.
Wine developer Ivan Leo Puoti's e-mail was linked on the Slashdot.org site and immediately generated a flood of comments. While some posters said they believed Microsoft was within its rights blocking users who were running older versions of Windows, others said they believed Microsoft was unfairly targeting users running legitimate Microsoft software on top of non-Microsoft operating systems.
News source: Microsoft Watch
Microsoft's Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) program has had its share of critics. But this week, a number of open-source advocates joined the ranks of those questioning Microsoft's methods for thwarting software piracy. On Wednesday, a developer of Wine — an open-source implementation of the Windows application-programming interface that allows Windows applications to run on Unix and Linux — said he discovered that Microsoft's Windows validation tool checks for Wine and generates an error when it is found.
Wine developer Ivan Leo Puoti's e-mail was linked on the Slashdot.org site and immediately generated a flood of comments. While some posters said they believed Microsoft was within its rights blocking users who were running older versions of Windows, others said they believed Microsoft was unfairly targeting users running legitimate Microsoft software on top of non-Microsoft operating systems.
News source: Microsoft Watch
Changelog:
- No Spyware, ads and pop-ups
- Connect Fasttrack, G2/Gnutella and eDonkey
- Search simultaneously on all networks
- Works with SP2
- Supports Sig2Dat and eDonkey links
- Many tools included
- Up to 9999 search results
- Skin support
- Disabled webcontent
build 2:
- Name change
- Links updated
- IM-L 5 and IM-L 4 conflicts fixed
- Installer updated
- Serveral bugs fixed
I couldn't agree more. If the person bought it legally, then what does it matter?
For example, you don't buy a car and blame the mfr for not allowing it to run on air. It's designed to work with gas. If you can get it to run on air, more power to ya ... but no support from the mfr.
Anyhow, the EULA made no mention of any sort of limitation on to what OS the product may be installed. So, a Linux user would not be violating any contract with Microsoft for using MS Office. I would not expect any Linux platform support from them, but as a purchaser, I would expect to not be deliberately blocked.
Oh well, I use OpenOffice.org anyway...
Yah, but this is a car that does run on air, now being purposfully stopped from being allowed to run on air, or rather a better analogy would be to say that it does run on one type of petrol/gas, now only being able to run on the manufacturer's petrol/gas, after having being able to run on any petrol/gas before.
Any petrol/gas -> only one type of gas, that costs twice as much as regularpetrol/gas.
you decide for yourselves.
I have purchased MS Office 2000 SBE (for my wife's PC) and tried to get it to show the EULA. It doesn't. There is no EULA to agree to when I installed it (though the installation window claims there is a license page). To get to the EULA, you have to install it and use the help files. Interestingly enough, the EULA states that I agreed to the EULA by installing the product (seems I cannot review it prior to installation)
It's the 2nd dialog displayed, right after the user inputs the product id. You might remember it as the one where you have to check a box saying that you agree to it before you're allowed to continue with the install.
Did you really try and install it, or did you see this as your chance to plop in some Linux fan-boy FUD?
Anyhow, the EULA made no mention of any sort of limitation on to what OS the product may be installed. So, a Linux user would not be violating any contract with Microsoft for using MS Office. I would not expect any Linux platform support from them, but as a purchaser, I would expect to not be deliberately blocked.
I'm sure their position is that running Office in a non-Windows OS is not an approved enviroment. Since they don't test the patches for compatiblity under such scenarios, they can't guarentee they'll work.
Gotta love Linux users... there's no end to what they'll whine about!!!
Did you really try and install it, or did you see this as your chance to plop in some Linux fan-boy FUD?
Finally...
Stop trolling. I don't allow it in the forums, and it won't be allowed here.
Take a look at the box your copy of Office came with. Now find the "System Requirements" list. Let me know if it mentions it there
Yes. I really installed it on my son's PC, and went through the whole process. The left side had a line item mentioning the license, but it wasn't clickable to view. I had to install the product, then fire up Excel, go to help > contents > End User License (the last item on the list) to view the license. I thought my first post was pretty clear, but apparently not step-by-step enough for some people who prefer to cast accusations.
Oh, your post was clear, it was also inaccurate. I pulled out my disk and began an install on a virtual machine - I had no problem viewing the EULA, and I could copy & paste it into a text file as well.
I can only conclude that you either lack basic compitence, or your a little Linux FUD machine.
Apparently you didn't read my earlier post at all! Let me post the line again... I would not expect any Linux platform support from them, but as a purchaser, I would expect to not be deliberately blocked.
I read your post fully - I just disagreed with you. Why is that so hard for you to accept?
Microsoft would never provide platform support for a non-MSFT OS. You don't think they provide support for Macs that happen to have Office installed on them, do you? They'll provide support for the Office installation only.
I don't think they should provide support for any of their software running on a Linux box, unless they produce one specifically for that platform. Seeing as patches are a form of product support, I have no problem with what their doing.
Stop trolling. I don't allow it in the forums, and it won't be allowed here.
It's called an "opinion", one based on observation of the behaviour of Linux fan-boys. Maybe you think it's trolling because it's too close to the truth for your comfort???
Nor do I. I just think it's illegal, but that doesn't mean it would affect me in any shape or form.
Regarding the EULA, that kind of license agreement is not valid over here anyway.
Why is it so hard for you to accept that the EULA didn't show up during his install? Were you there, watching over his shoulder? You think everybodies machine works just exactly like yours does? Oh Mr embodiment of wisdom, power and light knows just exactly how everybodies machine will work, because he's seen every single solitary distro installation variety. Get real dude.
Also, you probably also need to learn how read.
GJ
A lot of online vendors sell OEM software WITHOUT boxes. Just because someone has software that comes without a box doesn't make he/she a pirate.
Your piracy theory is a load of sh!t.
Actually the box has a list of System Requirements, one of which is "Microsoft Windows 98 or later."
Secondly, they have done nothing to prevent you from running Office on WINE. The "Windows Genuine Advantage" program only applies to XP, as far as I know. And it is NOT required to download any patches or support files.
Furthermore, did they not say that it DOES let you through if you're running WINE with Windows XP?
fjv.
GJ
When the IT department gets a call saying "help my machine is broken" and then it's found out that a 3rd party non-supported app is on the machine, even starting down the road of removing that app is implicit support.
Legally speaking, once cross the threshold of discovery, and find that there is a non-supported element present, you MUST stop providing support or it becomes implicit support. In other words, if it patches Office on Linux, then Linux is supported....
That's not wrecking or sabotaging... that's simply legal protection.
By that logic, if Windows Update patches a "warez" version of Windows, then Microsoft supports "warez"? No. Allowing access to updates does not mean that you support that entire platform.
The law accounts for reasonable circumstances, unlike you.
Cheers
If Microsoft released an update which meant that, for instance, Word wouldn't work with processors with speeds under the system requirements (even if they did techically work previously), what are you gonna do? Call them up, and say "I know my computer isn't as fast as the requirements say, but I demand that you undo whatever you changed because it USED to work!"
Now replace "isn't as fast" with "doesn't have the OS".
No, they aren't:
Also there's no relation between WINE and piracy (none that they or any other has proved so far), so blocking WINE to prevent piracy is a nonsense. They might aswell block Award BIOS users based on the assumption that they are more prone to pirate their OS than Phoenix BIOS users
Because WINE doesn't show up as a valid XP OS, it is blocked. Microsoft never promised their software would work on Linux, and as an unrelated practice to prevent piracy, WINE is locked out. Correct?
Microsoft isn't blocking interoperability; they're just not going out of their way to write in code to distinguish a windows emulator from an invalid Windows OS.
They don't need to promiss interoperability, the Sherman Act says they cannot block it.
This has nothing to do with interoperability. They're not preventing a Linux box from sharing data with a Windows box, they're saying they won't provide patches for use in an unsupported & untested enviroment.
It isn't much of a stretch to imagine what would happen if they allowed it and a patch screwed up somebody's system, you'd all be in here crying like 4 year olds that just found out Barney was canceled!!!
"Boo Hoo Hoo... M$ is evil!!! Bill Gate$ doesn't love me!!!"
They're going out of there way to distinguish WINE from an actual Windows OS. WINE doesn't show as an invalid OS unless they specifically check for WINE.
So this really is a lot of fuss about something they haven't even done, yet.
But it's something totally different to deliberately deny updates to Linux users!
To me, it's similar to the Windows Update site case, where Microsoft deliberately block access from users using other browsers (ie: Netscape).
See MS's antitrust court case fro proof of that one.
But think about Microsoft's view. They're trying to make money, the goal of any business. The fact that MS products are being run on Linux is not something to be proud of. MS has just implemented strategy to protect it's competitive advantage.
just like Microsoft does
it is very similar to the way HP and other companies are trying to make people use their original ink
Microsoft played a dirty trick, but it's their right to do so
If this doesn't fall under the "blocking interoperability" term, then what does. There're specifically adding code whose only purpose is to break interoperability.
You got screwed on your law degree there Bud. Go back to ITT Tech & see if you can get your money back.
Although executable applications must conform to the CPU standard they run in, this type of compliance is not known as interoperability. The term tends to be widely used with networking equipment. See interoperable.
Are you trying to tell me the are not breaking " two or more software routines to work harmoniously together." They dont have to help you if it doesnt work in the first place. They cant break interoperablity on purpose though.
I don't see what the problem is here, other then the fact that Microsoft is counting the number of people running WINE.
Even if they implement this same validator in the next version of Windows Update (or Microsoft Update)... it still isn't breaking interoperability.
The program still INSTALLS and RUNS on wine. You can even download the patches for Windows or a program like Office seperately.
XP on WINE?
WINE Is Not An Emulator. It's only recreating the Windows API so programs designed for Windows can run on *nix.. it doesn't emulate the whole OS, nor allows the OS to be run ontop of it.
I don't see the code as the following:
if (Wine not running){
Approval
}
All I see is this:
if (Legal Windows XP or 2000 is running){
Approval
}
of course its purpose is to break interoperability because that's what WGA stands for. It not only checks if you're Windows or not. It checks whetever you're running XP or 2000, and it determines if it's legal. So if you're Win98 you're still out of luck, even it's Windows and it's legal. So are you still saying that Microsoft is breaking interoperability for blocking Win98 users off even Win98 may be able to run those codes?
If I am reading this right, (which I may well not be), he is saying he reverse engineered their code to see what microsoft are checking. If I have understood it right, then what he has done is illegal.
But on topic, I don't see why people would use linux as the O/S, and then run a windows emulator to run apps on it. Surely there are Linux equivalent apps to use, or aren't there any that are as good as the microsoft versions?
at least that how i think it is... b/c well he is just checking to see if Wine is working
I have just done some research, info is from here: Reverse Engineering and Law
The information I specifically read was parts IV A & C.
It says that it is legal to reverse engineer software only if the purpose of reverse engineering it is for interoperability, and in this case, that is what he is trying to do. Also, it states that the enforcability of anti-reverse engineering clauses in software terms of use are debatable, and in most cases a court will not enforce them. Basically, what they are doing is legal.
In regards to the 80% of code matching... I did not find anything about that, but im guessing that if the code is too similar, then whoever wrote it can easily be sued on copyright grounds.
Last edited by 54078 on 19 Feb 2005 - 00:02
You & Ichi must have gotten your law degrees from the same strip mall. Maybe you can save your Pepsi-points for a medical degree next time!!!
You cant complain when the box tells you the requirment is to be runing microsoft windows it says no were about running it under wine.