As I see it, they can't stop anyone writing the software to take advantage of an operating system. After all, that is what an operating system is for, it is just a host for other peoples software. It would be restriction of trade to stop authors writing this stuff.
The license is directed at the end users, so it would be end users that would be in trouble if they went against the license agreement. This could end up as another anti-trust. I think what they are trying to do is to license the count of sharing a desktop. This is acceptable if they feel that people could bypass their protection scheme to stop too many desktops running using their system, however, the wording is probably such that they will frighten many people away from using other systems. As I see it, if I purchase per seat (or per server) licensing for a server, then I should be able to access any of the facilities of that server. If I choose to install software on that server that will give a desktop to the client, if that client has an access license, then why should that client not get a desktop? If they want to restrict this sort of system, and charge the earth for it, then I see that cheaper alternatives will start to come forward for their customers operating systems. They should make a distinction between operating system and desktop sharing system, and have different licensing for each. I fear this license could just be another nail in the coffin, as it is starting to make MS look greedy. Regards. Dave Colliver. ~~ All I ask is a chance to prove that money can't make me happy. Collectible dolls from http://www.collectorsdolls.com Web design? Web hosting? http://www.revilloc.com is the answer. Tips, tricks and articles for programmers of all languages on http://www.sourcecodecorner.com Planning a wedding? http://www.bmcweddings.com Advertise your car for free on http://www.drivingseat.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Get your own free mailserver from http://www.revilloc.com/mailserver ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 6:27 PM Subject: RE: What is the word here about Microsoft, VNC and XP? > Well this brings up an interesting point. Hypothetical: Let's assume that > AT&T drop support for VNC altogether and there is only an Open Source > version available. If a court ruled that it was illegal to run on a M$ > operating system, then who would they sue? The developers? Well they are > transitory, they come and go and don't profit (monitarily anyway), and would > you just sue the current bunch or everybody who worked on it before (after > all, they are probably the ones responsible, the current people are more > likely to be maintainers if it's a mature OS release). It would really have > to be the users and how could M$ sue their end-point customers (not to > mention there would be so many and hard to track). Could they force the > site hosting the source to remove it? Isn't th --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the line: 'unsubscribe vnc-list' in the message BODY See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------
