full-disclosure - FW: Windows 2000 Service Pack 3 now available.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <382BC0C28F397F4785E7414B8279F5271B5346@n2-atl-exch.it.n2bb.com>
From: ARouse at n2bb.com (Alan Rouse)
Subject: FW: Windows 2000 Service Pack 3 now available.

Steve Szmitdt wrote:

> Sorry but this sounds plain stupid. How would you convince a judge
that 
> you ran a program designed to remove the EULA, and now that it gone
you 
> don't need to follow it!? 

I think the rationale is, it's not an "agreement" if you didn't agree.
There is no pretense that you were unaware of the EULA.  Just that you
never agreed to it.

Conditions presented after the sale are (or should be) unenforceable.
Especially things like MS has added to their EULA for W2K SP3.  This is
clearly changing the conditions after the sale.  The question is, do
they have a right to refuse to fix defects in an already-purchased
product unless you agree to new terms and conditions.  Legally I'm not
sure, but ethically it is pretty clear.  They are trying to bully their
customers.  Typical monopolist behavior.  And especially blatant, given
the current barrage of lawsuits against them on this subject.