Maximum PC EULA RSS Feed

Dell Refunds Customer's Money After He Refuses Windows

Ryan Whitwam — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:09:01 -0500

So you just bought a new PC, but you don’t buy into the closed-source software hegemony of Microsoft? You’re in luck. With only a few months of your time, and some technical expertise, you too can get a refund on Windows. That’s just what Graeme Cobbett did recently. Knowing that he intended to run Linux Mint on his new Dell Studio 1555, he informed Dell that he did not agree to the Windows EULA.

Cobbett blogged about his reasons for turning down the EULA saying, “Have you ever actually read the Microsoft Windows End User License Agreement? It's pretty scary what you commit yourself to.” By not starting Windows, Cobbett was legally entitled to a refund on the software.

The pertinent section of the EULA reads, “By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the software. Instead, return it to the retailer for a refund or credit.” After two months and 14 emails, Cobbett had his $115 refund. Would it be worth it to you?

The Chrome Chronicles: EULA Amended, Carpet-Bombing Alarm Raised

Pulkit Chandna — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 20:21:49 -0500

After a few eyebrows were raised over Chrome’s highly libertarian end-user license agreement (EULA) – almost a proclamation of a man’s fundamental right to piracy, an amendment or an explanation was inevitable. Chrome’s EULA stated that users were at liberty to use anything posted online through the browser. But Google has amended the EULA. The web juggernaut also downplayed the entire episode as a mistake. Setting the EULA aside, a few chinks in Chrome’s armor have already been sighted. Avi Raff, a researcher, has discovered that Chrome is vulnerable to carpet-bombing a la Safari.

Microsoft Capitulates on Vista Licensing Terms!

Will Smith — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:56:58 -0600

digg_url='http://digg.com/software/Microsoft_Capitulates_on_Vista_License_Transfers';

I just got off the phone with a couple of Microsoft reps, who told me that they've made a change to the Vista license to accomodate the enthuiast market. (If you've not been following this story, the original Vista EULA prohibited transferring a copy of Vista to more than one other machine, so frequent upgraders could have found themselves buying a new copy of Vista every third upgrade.)

The new license will be included with the retail boxes of Vista and will be posted online later today. It states: "You may uninstall the software and install it on another device for your use. You may not do so to share this license between devices."

That's enough of an improvement to make me happy. Edit: There's a forum thread here.

Microsoft's Licensing Madness

Will Smith — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:50:06 -0500

The controversy du jour regards a particularly abhorrent clause that Ed Bott noticed in Microsoft’s end-user license agreement for Vista. Most software EULAs are documents filled with nasty lists of things that you can’t do with the software you purchased, but the clause Microsoft snuck in unannounced is especially evil. It’s titled “Reassign to another device.”

Here’s the exact text: “The first user of the software may reassign the license to another device one time.” That means that if you purchase a copy of Vista at retail—be it the $200 Home Basic or the $400 Vista Ultimate package—you have the right to install that OS on one machine. When you retire that machine, you can install the OS on a second PC, but that’s it. Unlike the Windows XP EULA, which permits you to continue transferring the OS indefinitely (as long as you remove it from the previous machine), Vista’s EULA restricts each copy of the OS to two computers.

Naturally, the new policy will be enforced using Product Activation. Upgrade too much hardware, too many times and Microsoft will disable your legally purchased version of Windows Vista. Frighteningly, none of the Microsoft representatives I’ve spoken with can specify what determines the difference between a hardware upgrade and a new machine; all they’ll say is that it’s a complicated algorithm.

This makes Vista very, very unattractive for anyone who builds his or her own rigs. Vista will force people who frequently build new machines or do regular major upgrades—like you and me—to pay Microsoft a couple hundred bucks a year for the privilege of running Vista. I’ve had a few problems with the new OS, but I’m ready to drop WinXP. But it will be a cold day in hell before I pay multiple times for the same piece of software for the same PC. That’s highway robbery.

Why is Microsoft doing this? Because it can. There will be relatively few people affected by this license change, as the vast majority of Vista builds will end up in OEM machines purchased by people who don’t upgrade. Indeed, even if everyone who’s affected by this clause decides to boycott Vista, it won’t make a measureable impact on sales.

I’ve never been more conflicted about a product before. If the EULA remains as-is, I’ll be unable to recommend Vista to the Maximum PC elite. The hitch is DirectX 10, which only works with Vista. I just saw the first batch of games written for DirectX 10, and they make “next-gen” console titles look like bantha fodder. Every hardcore gamer will be forced to make a Hobson’s choice.

I've sent a letter saying the same thing to the higher-ups at Microsoft, but I don't really expect to hear anything good. I'd be really interested to hear what you guys think about this mess, so feel free to join the discussion in our forums.

This is a dark day for PC enthusiasts.