digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Windows XP EULA in Plain English

linuxadvocate.org — Ever wonder what rights you give up when using Windows XP? This article looks at the Windows XP End-Used License Agreement and takes it apart, paragraph by grueling paragraph, and turns legal-speak into plain English.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • shikitho, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Software developers cannot attempt to figure out how Windows XP Home works for any reason (including writing software that works with or communicates with Windows XP Home). Communicates with the OS?? Every piece of software would be breaking the EULA!
    • Lorian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16Not really, here is what it actually says:

      "4. LIMITATIONS ON REVERSE ENGINEERING, DECOMPILATION, AND DISASSEMBLY. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation."
    • CharlesDarwin, on 10/12/2007, -20/+2But isn't this a really old eula? Where's the beef?
    • crpietschmann, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7"including writing software that works with or communicates with Windows XP Home"
      Now doesn't all software running on Windows work with and communicate with Windows???

      Yeah, the person that wrote this "EULA in Plain English" doesn't seem to have very much technical knowledge.
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6looks like the current eula to me
      http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/eula.mspx
    • CharlesDarwin, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1"looks like the current eula to me"

      I don't think you get it. Windows XP was released a long time ago. I mean, if they had broken down the eula for vista it might be newsworthy. I still wouldn't digg it, but I might not report it as old news.
    • amhed, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3I think it's a little missleading and biassed
    • edwinm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I think it's fair to translate "REVERSE ENGINEERING, DECOMPILATION, AND DISASSEMBLY" with "figuring out how it works".

      If this explanation isn't clear enough, you should've read the real EULA to begin with.
    • hseldon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"4a. LIMITATIONS ON DECIPHERING, DE-COMPILATION, AND DISASSEMBLY OF EULA. the EULA is protected by the United States DMCA. Any attempt to decipher, understand or otherwise paraphrase will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."
    • IQ70, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Please read OS X EULA.
      http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/macosx104.html

      It pretty much says the same things, as in, cannot reverse engineer, cannot rent, cannot use on more than one apple-made computer, you consent to allow them to use data, and they are not liable for anything.

      So, what is the whole issue with the XP EULA again?
  • swhite1987, on 10/12/2007, -34/+7This is more of a Microsoft basher, while I myself am no advocate of the Devil's own company, I feel this article is a little biased and should be taken with a grain of salt. You're better off just working through the legalspeak and figuring it out yourself.

    This is on the front page with only 24 diggs in 9 and a half hours? wtf?
    • Shii, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16I think it's pretty accurate, actually. Do you see any specific mistakes?

      If this doesn't seem scary to you, compare it to the rights you have with Linux.
    • antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -17/+23Would people stop saying: Only 40 diggs and on the front page? YES IT'S ON THE DAMN FRONT PAGE! DEAL!
    • PurpleMeteor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17It may be a Microsoft basher but some paragraphs of all EULAs are illegal in some countries (most european countries for example).
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3it depends on the catagories it is posted in i believe..
      I also wonder why this one is in "deals"
      but it probably isnt a mistake.
    • zootm, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20@Shii
      "I think it's pretty accurate, actually. Do you see any specific mistakes?"

      There's systematic bias in the translations. For example:
      "You agree that at any time, and at the request of %u201Ccontent providers%u201D (eg. media giants such as Sony and BMG), Microsoft may disable certain features on your computer, such as the ability to play your music or movie files."

      This is misleading. The only thing it gives them the right to do is revoke the licences to DRMed content. Although their translation is technically correct, it is misleading - they imply that the rule is more wide-ranging than it is. This is a general trend.

      "You agree that Microsoft can automatically and without your consent put new software on your computer."

      This is misleading because the wording specifically restricts it to "upgrades and fixes", which isn't the "any new software" they imply. Again, accurate but misleadingly worded.

      On the whole it's not *that bad*, but a "plain English" guide really should put a little more rigour into using accurate wording. Comments like "What are you paying for, exactly?" are unhelpful and stupid (you're paying for a licence to use the software, not any guarantee that it's flawless, since no software is).
    • krewemaynard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@PowerCow: "I also wonder why this one is in "deals""

      guessing here, but maybe because a EULA is an agreement (deal).

      anyway, stories make it to the front page thanks to a Digg algorithm, not strictly on the number of diggs. Kevin Rose did a killer job of explaining this on TWIT 51.
    • diggtastical, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@zootm
      "This is misleading because the wording specifically restricts it to 'upgrades and fixes'"

      If MS has the right to upgrade/change/switch (whatever they want to call it) software on your computer, what happens if they break things? What if the "upgrade" does something you don't want it to do?

      Really, couldn't they put *anything* on your computer as part of an "upgrade"? Meh.
    • zootm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"If MS has the right to upgrade/change/switch (whatever they want to call it) software on your computer, what happens if they break things? What if the "upgrade" does something you don't want it to do?"

      The fact that upgrades to the operating system could be argued against by some is *exactly* why this clause *has to exist within the EULA*. The automatic update system *should*, for it to be effective, be turned on by default. This is the warning you get of that. If you'd rather not update, it is possible to turn it off, as I'm sure you're aware.
    • prh99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4IANAL, but the EULA and the translation seemed pretty well matched. Then again my interpretation of Microsoft's legal speak could be off. If they wanted to be disingenuous and just bash Microsoft, I doubt they would have provided the text of the EULA and link to the official copy on Microsoft's website so users can decide for themselves. As the article points, out whether or not you read the EULA, you're bound by it if you use XP. Many people skip reading it because it's long and in legal speak. So if an English summary gets people to read (even if it's because you think they're bashing MS) what they're agreeing to when they use Microsoft or anyone else's products then it's a good thing. As for bias, there is a varying degree of bias in just about everything you read. The potential for bias doesn't necessarily invalidate what's being said or argued. How many EFF and Arstechnica (sp?) article get put up on digg? Both of those sources have some pretty clear biases, especially when it comes to copyright issues and the RIAA and MPAA (aka MAFIA), yet we don't just dismiss articles.
  • wpholmes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18I challenge anyone to find a single person who hasn't broken this...
    You may not lend you computer to anyone? wtf?
    • freeaxes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3<sigh> this is exactly what zootm is talking about... the ACTUAL EULA text reads:
      "5. NO RENTAL/COMMERCIAL HOSTING. You may not rent, lease, lend or provide commercial hosting services with the Software."

      That's a restriction on the SOFTWARE... not the computer. The correct "English" translation of that section should have been:
      "You may not rent, lease, or lend your copy of Windows XP Home to anyone, or use it to provide commercial hosting services."

      Nothing silly about that. You're not allowed to set up a "Blockbuster Operating Systems" rental store (duh), and if you want to provide commercial hosting services, you're supposed to buy a copy of Windows Server 2003 (or whatever the equivalent was back when XP launched).

      zootm: I suppose it's to be expected that a site named "linuxadvocate.org" would be somewhat biased in this regard =)
    • diggtastical, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@freeaxes
      "You're not allowed to set up a "Blockbuster Operating Systems" rental store (duh)"

      Buy a TV (full of software): free to rent it.
      Buy a TIVO (full of software): free to rent it.
      Buy a computer (full of software): can't rent it.
    • IcanFLY, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It is trying to suggest you can't have your own cyber cafe running copies of XP Home. The price of Microsoft software usually is related to your license rather than what features are included. They just try to remove certain features to encourage for example, business users to use XP Pro, rather than XP Home. If a company wants to host a large commercial website, they are expected to be able to pay for their copy of Server 2003 because the company can afford it, and also expects to profit directly from the use of Server 2003 more than for example, a highschool student writing up their essay.
    • edwinm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I think wpholmes is right. If your computer is running Windows, you are not allowed to lend it.

      Where does it say it only applies to commercial 'lending' or only to the CR-ROM?
    • freeaxes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@diggtastical: It's important to distinguish between the concept of renting out a computer and renting out a piece of software. The article fails to make that distinction, which leads to the sort of example you've provided.

      The correct example would be:
      Buy a TV (full of software): free to rent it.
      Buy a TIVO (full of software): free to rent it.
      Buy a single copy of Windows XP (is software): can't rent it.

      Why is this fair? Because if you rent a TV or a TIVO to someone, they can only use those items until they return them to you, because they are PHYSICAL items. That's not the case with software. They can install it, and then return it, and keep using the software past the point where they return it to you. There used to be a video game rental store here near where I live that did EXACTLY that. They have since gone out of business, but I had the person at the store tell me once "you know, if you don't uninstall the software before you bring it back, there's no real way for us to know that <wink>"

      So, if you buy a copy of Windows XP for the full price, then "rent" that out to 100 people at the price of $5 per day, you've made a profit of $420, while Microsoft has only been paid the $80 for the copy you bought. Microsoft is not happy with this idea (for perfectly understandable reasons). So, when they sell you the software, they do so under the conditions that you will not do something that prevents them from collecting the money that they deserve.

      They make sure that it's in the EULA so that they can at least have SOME sort of grounds on which to base a legal argument, should then need to take you to court for failing to act in accordance with their wishes.
    • freeaxes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@edwinm: It says so IN THE EULA.... see the end of item 5... where it says "the Software"?
    • zootm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@freeaxes
      "zootm: I suppose it's to be expected that a site named "linuxadvocate.org" would be somewhat biased in this regard =)"

      Well, perhaps, but to be honest I really do like OSS software (most of my systems run Linux, and it's great to see it get more usable all the time), and it just pains me to see a community which has spent so long complaining about "FUD" shamelessly use the very same tactics without a second thought. It damages the credibility of the community as a whole.
  • interiot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Can somebody set up a Wiki so people can do this? I'd love to 1) make it clear to companies that there's wide demand for clearly understandable EULAs, 2) it'd be nice if people with a minute or two extra on their hands could help out with something like this, and 3) it'd be nice if people could discuss and correct any mistakes with the simplified english (I think this author simplified a few sections too much, for instance)
    • CarzorStelatis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't think it'll happen anytime soon - there are all sorts of legal issues with rephrasing a legal statement from someone else and claiming it as authoritative.
    • Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There could always be a disclaimer on the Wiki explaining that it isn't an authoritative "translation." Something seriously wrong here when an English document requires translation to be written by native English speakers...
  • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/eulalyzer.html
    eula analyzer is an ok software that reads them things for ya.
    hadnt used it in a while i am going to see what it says on the xp eula
  • tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5It's on a Linux site, it says you can't write software that works with XP Home (eh?) and "what are you paying for exactly?". It may be true to an extent, but it's biased crap.
    • 1337guy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Wow... its amazing how a bunch of 0s and 1s can have such a restrictive terms on using it (That's what we're paying for, 0s and 1s)
    • nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I agree, it is biased. But at least they put the real EULA next to their "translation" so you can read it yourself and make your own decision.
    • theone3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Almost all intellectual property can be brought down to binary form. (Medium of Windows is a CD, medium of a book is paper) But you're not paying for 1's and 0's, you're paying for the functions that Windows enables you to use. If Windows was distributed in a non-binary form (let's say an analogue form), but the user experience was the same, would the demand differ? Similarly, if there was no user experience, no 'toolkit', would the demand differ?
  • AeroSquid, on 10/19/2007, -3/+6Most software has similar EULAs.
    • nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The WMP10 EULA has some equally questionable parts in it.
  • xice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3well, 1st non-gpl eula ive ever read..thanks
  • infonography, on 10/12/2007, -24/+18here is an alternative transltion

    Narrator: In A.D. 2101, war was beginning.

    Captain: What happen ?
    Mechanic: Somebody set up us the bomb.
    Operator: We get signal.
    Captain: What !
    Operator: Main screen turn on.
    Captain: It's you !!
    CATS: How are you gentlemen !!
    CATS: All your base are belong to us.
    CATS: You are on the way to destruction.
    Captain: What you say !!
    CATS: You have no chance to survive make your time.
    CATS: Ha Ha Ha Ha ....
    Operator: Captain !! *
    Captain: Take off every 'Zig' !!
    Captain: You know what you doing.
    Captain: Move 'Zig'.
    Captain: For great justice.
    • Lorian, on 10/12/2007, -15/+5Dunno what that has to do with the article, but it always makes me laugh, so digg anyway.
    • nooreazy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2lol
      BASE,BASE,BASE!
  • TROGDOR42, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I'd like somebody to write a similar article for Ubuntu or another Linux distro as a comparison. Aw, hell, how about OS X too?
  • mwace, on 10/19/2007, -4/+13"Microsoft is not liable even if they break the terms of this agreement."

    Thats heavy. I don't know how biased the author of this article is, but in their current position Microsoft can really get away with this. I really wish I could read something like this and then have the option to switch to a competing alternative product if I felt this is a product (or company) I do not want to support. As it is, I have no option but to accept... I know linux is great, but I'm a gamer, and I need DirectX - and Apple requires new hardware.

    If you ask me, the goverment should split Microsoft into three competing companies. Each company inherits the patents and such of microsoft, and they all start off with everything Microsoft had up until it broke up - and each chunk of what used to be microsoft creates their own flavor of Windows, and they all release them together in a competitive enviornment.
    • leszek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5be patient, with the speed of wine development, i bet you could play 99.9% of windows games on linux in 3 years.
    • The_Decryptor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"the goverment should split Microsoft into three competing companies."

      They were going to do that (due to the anti-trust ruling), it was going to be a Windows division, a MS Office division, and i think a MSN division.

      Just think, if the MS Office part were competing in a free market, we might have seen a copy for Linux.
    • eventualbuddha, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Split Microsoft up? This is not the government's job, and allowing them to do it to such a large corporation is a dangerous precedent. If you don't like Microsoft's products, you are free to keep from buying them. You are also free to explain to others why they should do the same.

      I use a Mac and would like to see Windows lose marketshare to OS X, but not because the government mandates it.
  • aragami, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3lmfao if my eula started quoting all your base i'd panic and run off

  • deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"Microsoft is not liable even if they break the terms of this agreement."

    Deepsub is not liable because he never reads license agreements.

    'I agree' == 'OK'
  • Smeed, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Man why dont they just take a giant ***** on all of their customers, it would be a lot easier.
  • chrislewis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5'You agree that Microsoft can automatically and without your consent put new software on your computer.'

    Whoa. Thats pretty scary. Suppose this program deleted all "untrusted" software?
    • Lorian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2This thing is actually pretty bias, take a look at the actual thing:

      "2.3 Internet-Based Services Components. The Software contains components that enable and facilitate the use of certain Internet-based services. You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the version of the Software and/or its components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades or fixes to the Software that will be automatically downloaded to your Workstation Computer."

      Basically it's just about Windows/Microsoft Update
    • Sukino, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Basically yes, legally the simple version is right. Notice the word "may".
  • mike_c, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"You may not rent, lease, or lend your computer (including laptops) to anyone once it has Windows XP Home on it."
    how do schools and internet cafes work? does pro allow this?
    • Lorian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Schools and Internet cafes usually have a site liscence or similar, allowing them to install it on every computer. The stupid ones go out and buy a copy for every PC, wasting thousands of dollars, the sensible ones just download it of BT...
    • freeaxes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As Lorian said, it's all a matter of what you purchase. The EULA being translated came with a SINGLE PERSONAL COPY of Windows XP. Depending on exactly what you purchase, you may have different wording in parts of your EULA. If you're a business that buys a site license for example (say for an Internet cafe), then obviously the sections on how many computers you can install it on will be slightly different, as (I imagine) would the sections about leasing or renting the software.

      In the end, the translation is correct about one thing: the EULA for Windows XP is restrictive. Not quite as restrictive as some of the translations imply, but still. That's the very nature of the EULA, to restrict use. It's there to tell you "you must agree to only use this bit of software as follows, and if you don't agree to this, you need to return the software and buy something else which meets your needs."

      It's a shame that we've reached a point where these agreements need to be "translated" for most people, but then again, I'm not sure which part is more the shame: that the original language is phrased in a more complicated way than it really needs to be, or that many people are so uneducated (or possess such a poor vocabulary/inability to use a dictionary) that they NEED it to be simplified. =(
  • morphie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13"5. NO RENTAL/COMMERCIAL HOSTING. You may not rent, lease, lend or provide commercial hosting services with the Software."

    Is translated to:

    "You may not rent, lease, or lend your computer (including laptops) to anyone once it has Windows XP Home on it."

    That is not correct. You may lend your PC, but you cannot host services with WinXP Home, like a webserver for example. It is still a silly restriction, but if you want people to explain what is in the XP EULA, then do it right and don't lie.
    • zeroflake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I agree Morphie, 5 is incorrect!!!
  • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4eula are on shaky legal ground anyway.. how can you agree to a contract, if you have to buy the software before you can read it? what about giving me a chance to counter?
    I think eulas are cute but i highly doubt anyone was ever busted for not following one.
    • freeaxes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Sure, people are busted for software piracy all the time. =)
  • EPeters, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6the software transfer part in the best. You can install win xp home on second computer, as long as you delete the other installation. That kills microsofts ideas about charging you for a new install of xp.
    http://www.digg.com/software/Microsoft:_Upgraded_Motherboard_=_New_Windows_Licence
    • Lorian, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4That is a good point, I wouldn't have thought of that. Lets boycott Microsoft... Moreso than usual!
    • HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If that is truly the case then explain the following to me...

      A friend of mine has an HP PC. The hard drive died so we purchased a new one. This particular model of HP PC did not come with an idiot disk, it had an idiot partition that would handle software restores. IOW, she has no disks to reload XP from.

      I have a Gateway PC that came with XP Home (I took it off and loaded Linux so I don't need this copy of XP.) We tried to load this copy of XP and use both her original license key and the one I do not use. The windows verification/authorization program failed with BOTH codes!

      I looked on MS's sight for information but found nothing useful (they say I must have a pirated copy and be sure to notify the cops) but they include no information (that I could find) on how to fix this problem...
    • Lorian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You have to actually phone Microsoft now if you want to activate OEM keys.
    • Lorian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Just found this on the Microsoft website: "OEM operating system licenses live and die with each PC—they are not transferable."
    • HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I can understand if the OEM key "lives and dies" with the PC, but all we did was replace the hard drive!!!!
    • freeaxes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1HMTKSteve: The real problem is that the computer manufacturer your friend went with decided that to save money, they'd only purchase an OEM license. If they had wanted to spend more money, they COULD have sent you a computer with a real full license that you could legally re-install on a new hard-drive, but then they would have had to charge you more for the computer (or maybe just make less profit on the computer themselves).

      Moral of the story: you get what you pay for, and there's a reason that companies like HP and Compaq are cheaper to buy from. =(
    • EPeters, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2OEM copies ARE full versions of windows that can be legally re-installed, but HP is too stupid/cheap to give you the install disc. Restore discs are useless in any situation, HD failure, virus/spyware, software glitch, driver issues, etc. There are far better was to resolve those problems, but HP would never want to spend the time to help you.
  • zblackeagle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Don't you just love it how unilateral contracts take away your rights "...except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law", as though everyone knows what the applicable laws are?

    </sarcasm>
  • dupswapdrop, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2They got the money they make the laws.
    You just try to sue old bill, all your base belong to him!
    • akinder, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1What? They have the power to write licenses and charge what they want for the software that THEY provide.
  • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"You may permit a maximum of five (5) computers or other electronic devices (each a "Device") to connect to the Workstation Computer...."
    i guess p2p breaks the eula
    • 1337guy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1that part is really "WTH?" Then I guess (web/file) servers break the eula
    • leszek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Keyboard, mouse, joystick, screen, printer, scanner
      oops 6 devices.
    • 1337guy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1*looks at Device Manager* looks like almost everybody would break the EULA by having more than 5 devices
    • Lorian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2You put it out of context...

      "You may permit a maximum of five (5) computers or other electronic devices (each a "Device") to connect to the Workstation Computer to utilize one or more of the following services of the Software: File Services, Print Services, Internet Information Services, and remote access (including connection sharing and telephony services)."
    • Sukino, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2File Services = p2p for me
    • CoolSilver, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The internet in general breaks the EULA based on this. Yet Microsoft wants you to have internet.
  • krewemaynard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3the first thing that came to mind when i saw this story: http://batmanspeechtotext.ytmnd.com/

    best example of legalese/mumbo jumbo ever. :)
  • Ensnared, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Crowley had been extremely impressed with the warranties offered by the computer industry, and had in fact sent a bundle Below to the department that drew up the Immortal Soul agreements, with a yellow memo form attached just saying: 'Learn, guys'"
  • cwcheang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Microsoft assures you that Windows XP Home will work correctly for the first 90 days. They do not assure you that Windows XP Home or any “service packs” or “hot fixes” will work correctly after this time."

    That seems somewhat odd....
    • Lorian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Not really, it is just a warranty. Read the real version
  • bbeahm, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"If you try to install any third party software that has a similar use to any Microsoft software, Bill Gates has the legal right to eat the left arm of your first born child... and give you spyware"
  • ypct, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"If you share files or printers with other computers in your house, you are not allowed to share with more than 5 other computers."

    Can anybody hint the motive behind this image-crippling limitation? Can see the ad now:
    "Windows Vista - digital household - share files and prinders with max 5 computers!"

    When was that new Ubuntu to be released?
  • Pother, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5So with Linux "you get what you pay for". You pay nothing, no one promises you anything, and you get something that might work for you or your business. And if you need professional support you can pay something and get it.

    And it appears with Windows "you don't get what you pay for". You pay something, Microsoft promises you nothing, and you get something that might work for you or your business. And if you need professional support you can pay something and get it.

    So with Windows, basically we're paying Microsoft to promise us nothing.
    Ahh the wonders of marketing and salemanship!
  • artur.ventura, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Great part of EULA is ilegal in my country!

    Here you can't say things like

    "Microsoft is not liable even if they break the terms of this agreement."

    or

    "Microsoft will never have to pay you more than the price you originally paid for Windows XP Home."
  • akinder, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Awesome! The Windows EULA translated by a guy that runs a Linux fanboy website. Hm, must be completely unbiased.

    Keeping drinking the kool-aid kiddies. And to the idiot that say Microsoft should be broken into three seperate companies, for what reason? For being successful? Is there only one OS currently available? No? Then they are not a monopoly.
  • badbox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Good thing I never bought it, and good thing I never agreed to the EULA!

    (Their EULA is one of the reasons why I will never purchase an MS OS ever.)

    Yes, I realize there are other choices (Linux, etc), but I'd rather use windows and not pay for it since they feel they can treat people like consumer sheep.
  • ubergmr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Why can't all EULAs be written like this. Then i would actually take the time to read them.
    • chrislewis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I see good logic in your comment - I think EULAS are deliberatly confusified to make people think "meh, I'm not reading this". Dishonourable it the kindest word I would the Windows eula.
  • KageKonjou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"2.1 Digital Rights Management. Content providers are using the digital rights management technology contained in this Software ("DRM") to protect the integrity of their content ( "Secure Content") so that their intellectual property, including copyright, in such content is not misappropriated. Portions of this Software . . ."

    Translated to:

    "Microsoft and all its content providers are allowed to watch your porn."
    • Lorian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I just read that over several times, and I have no idea how you managed to get that translation...
  • swhite1987, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I love how all of the Mac and Linux fanboys out there mod down any comment that sheds the least bit of negative light on their "perfect" product. Deal with it- the article was biased, and from LINUXADVOCATE.com. Obviously the goal of the entire thing is to bash Microsoft. I'm no Microsoft fan, but I'm sick of getting modded down for useful and non-biased comments.

    MOD ME DOWN FOOLS
    • Lorian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I dugg your post, I was wondering why everyone was modding it down...
  • mikesmullin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This translated version was a quick read and easy to understand, thanks.

    It would be nice other agreements requiring acceptance by someone who does not practice law could be translated in this way and distributed with the product.

    In the future, I wonder if there will be EULAs such as this for farmers once we are able to genetically engineer and clone livestock commercially.
  • freeshri, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2all Eula's should be written in plain English and shortened, if they expect anyone to read it.
    seriously, how many of you read the whole thing before clicking 'I accept' ? maybe one person, MAYBE
  • prh99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What no provision forbidding the use of XP to disparage Microsoft (they did it with Office not so long ago).
    • IcanFLY, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They don't have it in this, but the .NET EULA has something like it. In the beta versions of .NET SDK, there was a clause saying no benchmarks of performance could be released. Once it left beta, they changed it to say that benchmarks were allowed publicly, as long as there was a detailed description of how exactly the test was carried out, that was repeatable.
  • Sl4sher, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Where's the part where Microsoft owns your soul? I know that's in the somewhere, or was that the Dell EULA?
    • ebola, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Nope, you got it mixed up. It's section 13.2.4 where they say "may your soul belong to Jesus, cos your ass belongs to me, bwahahaha".
  • tubetop, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Geez I was always scared of what those EULA's actually meant. Now that I know, I'm even more afraid. :)

    ~~tubetop~~
    http://tubetop.wordpress.com
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.