On Monday 23 October 2006 21:58, Peter H. Lemieux took the opportunity to say: > Magnus Holmgren wrote: > > I thought they did? At least the message from WU/WGA on one computer with > > Windows XP I used recently was that unauthorised installations only get > > critical updates, but they do get those. Is that going to change with > > Vista? > > Yes. See, for instance, http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/3665 > > Vista machines that Windows "Genuine Advantage" believes to be pirated > will operate with reduced functionality, including disabling the "Windows > Defender" software that protects against malware.
But Windows Defender != patches for security holes? Still, bad move ("security
in depth" etc.). We can only pray that, to the extent SPP works, people will
either pay up or get rid of Vista, or Windows altogether.
> All that said, those of you who think a lawsuit is a good approach should
> start by reading the Windows EULA. Like most EULA's it exempts Microsoft
> from liability for just about anything it's software does.
The EULA isn't binding to third parties, though. The question is whether
Microsoft, by willfully denying some computers adequate protection, is liable
of contributing to the crimes committed by others, or those installing
unauthorised copies are fully responsible.
--
Magnus Holmgren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(No Cc of list mail needed, thanks)
pgpftWD2JL9Vx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
