5毫子

Vista EULA restricts display to one person

No screenshots? Shorely shome mishtake

By INQUIRER staff: Monday 16 October 2006, 08:10
THE END USER licence agreement Microsoft has associated with the Vista OS appears to rule out showing a screen to anyone other than the owner of a system.

Paragraph 3C of the EULA states that while the software is running, you can use but not share its icons, images, sounds and media.

If Microsoft means to word the EULA this way, that implies you can\'t use projectors or linked video monitors if there\'s more than one human being present.

It also implies that you can\'t take a screen shot of the Vista desktop.

We suspect a cack handed phrasing of the EULA is behind this, rather than any conspiracy or cunning plan to tax projectors or extra monitors.

The Microsoft PDF of the EULA is here.

Source from theinquirer

Richteralan

I\'ll wait for more credible source, such as theinquirer, to make my judgement.

5毫子

引用:

Originally posted by Richteralan at 2006-10-17 06:08 AM:
I\'ll wait for more credible source, such as theinquirer, to make my judgement.

This is from theinquirer.......(or i just dun get what u mean.......)
Well, the thing is, this is a fairly reliable source coz the PDF dociment itself is actually being stored on the M$ server. With the release of RC2, this suggest that the final release is coming close. This document is therefore likely to be unchanged or only little amendment made.Any changes of the licensing terms are big. it is likely that M$ had planned it carefully through out already. Therefore, I think M$ really mean what it said and it is unlikely to change.

This is my opinion anyway......

Richteralan

引用:

Originally posted by 5毫子 at 2006-10-17 06:20:


This is from theinquirer.......(or i just dun get what u mean.......)
Well, the thing is, this is a fairly reliable source coz the PDF dociment itself is actually being stored on the M$  ...

yes I know this is from theinquirer, that\'s why I said a "more credible source such as theinquirer".

The inquirer is infamous in computer industry for their inaccurate and speculative "news"

I take any "news" from theinquirer as a ton of salt.

Richteralan

And yes, does the inquirer provide a link for the PDF download?

If not, they are interpreting the "mystic document" in any way we cannot know.

5毫子

引用:

Originally posted by Richteralan at 2006-10-17 02:22 PM:
And yes, does the inquirer provide a link for the PDF download?

If not, they are interpreting the "mystic document" in any way we cannot know.

this was the link they provided and it link straight to the microsoft server

Richteralan

引用:

Originally posted by 5毫子 at 2006-10-17 15:31:

this was the link they provided and it link straight to the microsoft server

Again theinquirer is interpreting themselves.

Paragraph 3C states:

While the software is running , you may use it but not share its icon, images, sounds and media.

This is perfectly acceptable. Vista\'s icon/images/sounds/media are copyrighted I would imagine you cannot SHARE it.

Now making presentations with projector is not SHARING. You are not SHARING the ACTUAL FILE.

Taking desktop screenshots is not SHARING. You are not sharing the actual icon/images file.

theinquirer is well-known to make a big fuss out of nothing and attract mouse clicks.

5毫子

引用:

Originally posted by Richteralan at 2006-10-18 12:25 AM:


Again theinquirer is interpreting themselves.

Paragraph 3C states:

While the software is running , you may use it but not share its icon, images, sounds and media.

This is perfectly ac ...

ah......... u see, this is where the problem comes in
I am not saying I am making a judgment based on just the article of theinquirer
I have interpreted this myself as well
Theinquirer only points out a possible way that Microsoft can play on the words, which is a good thing coz it made me award of the possibility that M$ will sue u for letting other people looking at your screen.
Another thing is that u are assuming the meaning of "share" in the EULA is only when the file is copied onto another computer or transmitted down a telecommunication line to another computer. (Although this is the "normal" definition of "sharing") But there are nowhere in this document defined what, in this case, "share" means
However, I agree this is not even anywhere near the reality but u cannot deny the possibility of it happening. (knowing the suing culture of America......)
I also agree that theinquirer do make a big fuss out of nothing. But it is just the way u look at it. Take all the fancy adjectives away and u may actually get something out of it.

BTW, I dun think treating theinquirer\'s article as a "ton of salt" is a good way of looking at it. Every article has its own value and I think evaluating them is a good way of getting the best out of the "salt"

Richteralan

引用:

Originally posted by 5毫子 at 2006-10-18 02:21:

ah......... u see, this is where the problem comes in
I am not saying I am making a judgment based on just the article of theinquirer
I have interpreted this myself as well
Theinquirer only po ...

Well, fine.

But I can say this for sure, if you know the reputation of theinquirer, you wouldn\'t have said what you said above.

5毫子

引用:

Originally posted by Richteralan at 2006-10-18 02:38 AM:


Well, fine.

But I can say this for sure, if you know the reputation of theinquirer, you wouldn\'t have said what you said above.

I was just making a point, however the articles are, at the end of the day, they are still different articles. Being prejudice to all of them is unfair.

Richteralan

引用:

Originally posted by 5毫子 at 2006-10-18 05:56:


I was just making a point, however the articles are, at the end of the day, they are still different articles. Being prejudice to all of them is unfair.

lol
actually I was not being prejudice to ALL of them.

I just take teh site: www.theinquirer.net, a single site as a ton of salt.

You obviously didn\'t read theinquirer for at least the past 5 years. You obviously don\'t know when inquirer changed their article within 1 hour to exactly opposite content/context. You also obviously don\'t know that theinquirer\'s multiple articles been pulled due to false/misleading information.

I don\'t want to argue here as it\'s no need to argue.

That\'s why I was being sarcastic by saying that "I will wait for a more \'credible source\' such as theinquirer..."

If the new MS EULA is very destructive to human right/fair-use right, I wouldn\'t believe no other website will not make any single article about it, especially linux fanatic sites and/or anti-MS sites.

Maybe this is why theinquirer can still survive till today.

Let\'s just wait and see and I belive MS won\'t this dumb if this is true as there are plenty of anti-Windows Vista voice in home users as well as business sectors.

5毫子

引用:

Originally posted by Richteralan at 2006-10-18 06:45 AM:


lol
actually I was not being prejudice to ALL of them.

I just take teh site: www.theinquirer.net, a single site as a ton of salt.

You obviously didn\'t read theinquirer for at  ...

I do agree with u about theinquirer making things up, I am not stupid and I am not going to believe eveything it saids.
And yes, u are right, I haven\'t been reading theinquirer for the last 5 years. Neither I know that theinquirer change their article every 1 hour.
Of coz, there are no argument needed because this is not a argument.
But now that u tell me your opinion, I will have a different way of looking at it. i.e. be more speculative.......

qcmadness

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4548

Richteralan

The article is not that interesting.....

Just read all user comments