Re: DirectX 9 SDK, Microsoft have got balls....
From: miked@rootdown.netDate: 05/28/02
- Previous message: ALoR: "Re: Your favourite capture/edit/retransmit tool?"
- In reply to: Blue Boar: "Re: DirectX 9 SDK, Microsoft have got balls...."
- Next in thread: Alex Lambert: "Re: DirectX 9 SDK, Microsoft have got balls...."
- Next in thread: Patrick Harper: "RE: DirectX 9 SDK, Microsoft have got balls...."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 14:30:54 -0600 (MDT) From: <miked@rootdown.net> To: vuln-dev@securityfocus.com
I really hate to ruin the conspiracy theories and Microsoft bashing here
folks, but I feel I need to inform you of something.
I'm not 100% sure on DX9 SDK Beta, but if I remember correctly from the
DX8 SDK Beta you were specificly told "DO NOT INSTALL THIS ON PRODUCTION
MACHINES". I think that goes for almost every Microsoft Beta. Most
legitimate beta sites that consist of more than a few machines have a
deticated beta box that gets wiped after the beta is over.
EULAs are really irrelevent at this point, every tester is under a Beta
contract with Microsoft already that plainly explains they are not
responsible for damages, and they have the option of bombing out your beta
boxes.
Anyone who is a ligitimate beta tester will get the full SDK and DX9 on CD
before the betas fully expire. So your not dead in the water even if you
loose your connectivity.
Just be glad they even warn you ahead of time.
-Mike
On Tue, 28 May 2002, Blue Boar wrote:
> Peter Thoenen wrote:
> > No..it would be a virus if it didn't warn you and you didn't intentially
> > install it. If you don't like what they are doing, don't install it,
> > Bill doesnt' have a gun to your head. Nobody is forcing you and I bet
> > you (IANAL) that it is perfectly legal. This is much the same way the
> > FrontpageXP warns you that by installing it, you give m$ permission to
> > unistall ANY software on your box they wish. Needless to say, I don't
> > agree, so I didn't install it. Nothing illegal about it though, its a
> > TOS agreement.
>
> And I think this thread boils down to what can one get away with by telling
> the victim what you will do to them in the EULA. We're not likely to
> settle any moral or legal questions on that subject here (unless someone
> would like to write an essay on the laws of software, ala Asimov's laws of
> robotics.) Right now (at least in the US), the assumption is that if it's
> not otherwise illegal, you can require it in a EULA. So, my license
> probably couldn't require you to perform sexual acts, because that would be
> prostitution. I could require that you come clean my house in a french
> maid outfit, though. (I won't be having any such clauses in my EULAs, I've
> seen what some of you people look like.)
>
> This will never be settled until there have been some court cases that
> define what is permissible. If you really want to accelerate the process,
> write a popular piece of software which license requires that the user
> remove all Microsoft software from their system, and never use it again.
> Enforce it programatically. Make a Windows version.
>
> BB
>
>
- Previous message: ALoR: "Re: Your favourite capture/edit/retransmit tool?"
- In reply to: Blue Boar: "Re: DirectX 9 SDK, Microsoft have got balls...."
- Next in thread: Alex Lambert: "Re: DirectX 9 SDK, Microsoft have got balls...."
- Next in thread: Patrick Harper: "RE: DirectX 9 SDK, Microsoft have got balls...."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
