, 2006-11-20
Mark Rasch looks at the license agreement for Windows Vista and how its product activation component, which can disable operation of the computer, may be like walking on thin ice.
Expand all |
Post comment
Vista's EULA Product Activation Worries
2006-11-21
FatHed (4 replies)
FatHed (4 replies)
Vista's EULA Product Activation Worries
2006-11-21
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
Where was Rasch four years ago, and what degree in Law does he have?
2006-11-22
Gordon Fecyk (3 replies)
Gordon Fecyk (3 replies)
Re: Where was Rasch four years ago, and what degree in Law does he have?
2006-11-22
Mark D. Rasch (1 replies)
Mark D. Rasch (1 replies)
Does Symantec practice 'self-help' in your 24-year legal opinion?
2006-11-22
Gordon Fecyk (2 replies)
Gordon Fecyk (2 replies)
Vista's EULA Product Activation Worries
2006-11-22
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
What No-one Else Has Noticed
2006-11-24
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
Haven't seen those "happy feet" marching off yet for 4 years
2006-11-26
Gordon fecyk (2 replies)
Gordon fecyk (2 replies)
Re: Haven't seen those "happy feet" marching off yet for 4 years
2006-12-12
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Vista's EULA Product Activation Worries
2006-12-05
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Re: Vista's EULA Product Activation Worries
2007-01-05
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Twice you misspelled "unequivocally" as "unequivically"; once in the original article and again in this reply. For those that don't know, "equivocal" means to be ambiguous or to have more than one interpretation as opposed to "univocal" which has only one interpretation. "Unequivocal" to me is kind of a dumb word just as "unhot" to mean "cold" would be dumb.
Cheers
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/423/34128#34128