Well you DON'T have to be a lawyer to know that M$ has NEVER refunded the lic fee that their EULA says it will refund if you don't accept their tterms. And their enforcement wing the BSA is notorious the world over for obtaining 'civil search warrants' and using the states police to serve them. In the US they use the FBI to assure that the 'civil search warrants' are executi1ed with out hinderence by the licensee. Even Judge Jackson left M$s 'per-processor' licensing clauses intact; he cited the higher likely-hood of pirating of M$ code as justification. So if you don't like it you had better start a POLITICAL process to change them because M$ has the law on their side. PeterB p.s. I have refused to buy a 'btranded' PC since my last IBM PS/2; I simply will NOT see my money go to M$ for stuff I don't use 7/17/2002 1:59:57 PM, James Mohr wrote:

On Wednesday 17 July 2002 20:10, Fast Info wrote:

...

I read somewhere on the web that by clicking on Accept when you start using a computer with MS system (apparently its called EULA), you agree to the fact that MS can ask you to remove any software from your system? This includes any other OS that you install after you receive your system. I am not sure about this but does that authorize MS to tell us to remove Linux from our dual-bootable system?

You should read the EULA yourself if you really want to know what it says. I would imagine that **theoretically** if you bought an OEM machine the EULA might say that the license is only valid if the purchased OS is the only one on the system. I think most of us would like to see the site that makes this claim. (Flame on!!!)

I seriously doubt that Microsoft could get away with *forcing* you to remove any software, but they can *ask* all they want. Besides *forcing** OEMs to include specific software on a system that the end user did not want was one of the key points in the anti-trust suit against Microsoft. I'm a geek, not a lawyer, but **no one** has the right to tell me what legally obtained software I installed on my system.

Regards,

jimmo -- --------------------------------------- "Be more concerned with your character than with your reputation. Your character is what you really are while your reputation is merely what others thing you are." -- John Wooden --------------------------------------- Be sure to visit the Linux Tutorial: http://www.linux-tutorial.info --------------------------------------- NOTE: All messages sent to me in response to my posts to newsgroups or forums are subject to reposting.

-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com

** Reply to message from "Jerry Feldman" on Wed, 17 Jul 2002 15:49:27 -0400 **I believe that MS has removed that clause from their EULAs. nope, they have begun, once again to add those workds esp. to fixes and security fixes for I.E. and simular proggies that really need a fix to be safe... esp , apparently , they were adding that dastardly wording to security fixes for anything that folk area likely to use, adn be frightend of the security notices... Gneralyy no one reads the Euals in those cases, they need the fix applied and if they don't agree to let MS, for instance, download anything and install anything to your computer w/o your express agreement, and also to snoop around to see what you have on the box, to read whatever they want to read, and generally make a nuisence of themsleves... Since you grant them the right to download and install anything, how long do we expect before there is a haxsor in the EASt , the Far east, or Further than that, who creates a trojan or other program, adn manages to get MS to install it on your box for him???? IT should't be too hard to locate what programs MS is installing by its "rights" and substitute a haxsed version ... It's not as if MS servers have been kept very secure. (Reason enough NOT to give them that carte Blanche I should think) j afterthought Madness takes it's toll. Please have exact change.