111 replies to this topic

[Wonko the Sane]

Which bears the question, why governments choose to keep the laws valid, but not enforce them, instead of deleting the law.

Or differently put, what interest does governments have, to make sure everyone breaks the law?

It hardly bears anything, I thought I had managed to have you pursuing a more practical approach , the reason why does not change facts.

Choose one (as answer to question #1):

• because they are bastards at heart
• because they are not paying enough attention to what they are doing
• because of sloth
• ....

or one (as answer to the differently put question):

• they enjoy themselves, being bastards at heart
• they have no interest whatever, they simply don't know what they are doing
• they have no interest whatever, but between working (to cancel a law) and doing nothing, they prefer the second
• ....

Wonko

[MedEvil]

I thought I had managed to have you pursuing a more practical approach

Hey, sometimes i just enjoy a good philosophical discussion.

Back to topic.
Can we host a WinPE for use over iPXE without getting into hot water?
I think so, at least for some time.
Maybe even longer.

@sambul61
Very nice post. Love the justice - law comparison.

[Wonko the Sane]

Can we host a WinPE for use over iPXE without getting into hot water?
I think so, at least for some time.
Maybe even longer.

A pragmatical question that need a preliminary answer:

• WHO are the "we"?

Or, if you prefer, who is gonna get into trouble (and pay the consequences) if and when an "Internet investigator" will get to the "we" (and of course if and when there will be consequences)?

For the definition of "some time" and "maybe even longer longer", I suggest you "a little Latin time", which provides a similar accuracy in a shorter sentence.



Wonko

[saddlejib]

I would have thought a simple resolution to the question of hosting pe legal or not would be to email Microsoft and ask their position on this and if allowed what restrictions if any ?

If they disagree we can have a good bitch about them !!

[Wonko the Sane]

I would have thought a simple resolution to the question of hosting pe legal or not would be to email Microsoft and ask their position on this and if allowed what restrictions if any ?

Why didn't you already mail them?


Wonko

[Tripredacus]

I did some searching and there are definately other companies that have implemented a WinPE iPXE boot. But what is the configuration of those servers? Can you only boot to this server using the companies IP blocks or are these servers freely accessable on the internet somewhere? That information is harder to find. I'm interested in this question (just because) but I don't feel a need to email Partner Support about it, since I can't find a use for it within my own company. I may wait until some friends pop up on IM and see but who knows when that would be.

Anyways, I think that it is OK for this to be done in a company, as a service to the company. But that if a public website where anyone can join offering this service to everyone (or even registered members) might be a different story.

[saddlejib]

@ Wonko
i would have thought it would carry more weight from one of the administrators of the prospective and well respected host site whos whole ethos is booting operating systems within the framework of the law.

Edited by saddlejib, 01 February 2012 - 07:20 PM.

[Wonko the Sane]

I would have thought that MS - when no money or possible loss of money are involved - doesn't "weight" at all.


Wonko

[MedEvil]

A pragmatical question that need a preliminary answer:

• WHO are the "we"?

We as in Boot-Land reboot.pro community. Of course in the end it's the one person whos name is on the hosting contract, whoever that may be.

Well, actually it will be Nuno. Cause it is eighter legal enough to be hosted here or it won't be linked to, what makes hosting it somewhere else pointless.

[Wonko the Sane]

http://www.domainwho....com/reboot.pro

So the question is now:
Nuno, do you think you can host for use over iPXE a PE 3.x - no matter if legal or not - without getting into hot water at least for a little latin time?
or:
Nuno, are you willing to risk whatever consequences hosting for a little latin time an iPXE bootable PE 3.x may carry?

A rather personal question, then, and probably more suitable to be asked through PM or e-mail.


Wonko

P.S.: The fact that I would ask this same question as follows:
Nuno, I don't think you are completely demented, but since this may be the case, what about hosting an iPXE bootable PE 3.0, at the possible risk of having boot-land reboot.pro domain blocked, besides possible personal legal problems?
has obviously no relevance whatsoever.

[sambul61]

I would have thought that MS - when no money or possible loss of money are involved - doesn't "weight" at all.

And if that's the case, then there is no party who's IP rights were allegedly violated, which makes WinPE boot over network lawful. Because law enforcement isn't needed, when there is no complaint filed, alleging violation of someone's rights and damages (neither its enough in most cases). And if at some Latin time MS will suddenly change their opinion and inform the party they think it might violate their IP rights, at this point the party will choose the best action, which may be 1) disregard such letter, if it believes no law was violated, or 2) comply with that letter thus resolving the matter.

So, why are you threatening people with something you have very little clue about?

In fact, a better approach may be to start testing web boot of some other OS that has explicit permitting EULA clauses. It might be, there will be no interest to such feature, making it not worse to discuss. On the other hand, MS in fact might be (blindfully) grateful for such modern approach to Windows promotion, also helping to develop future programmers for them.

[Wonko the Sane]

So, why are you threatening people with something you have very little clue about?

I am not threatening anyone.
All I tried to do was to shift the (false) issue about (theoretical) legality to (real) issue about (practical) possible consequences and on whom these may fall.


Wonko

[saddlejib]

When you guys sort out a boot issue you look at it logically (will it won't it, could it,can it,can I??) but looking at practical things you hit a quagmire of philosophy and ethics.
You have to lay down the facts as normal rather than bickering. i.e the facts have to be established No1 fact in this debate is it legal to use PE> Nobody has asked the question of MS and its better coming from a group with integrity (reboot.pro).
I'm sorry I don't have the clarity of Jacklaz but I see the lack of direction.

[steve6375]

Step 1 - Is hosting iPXE http images on reboot feasible (i.e. does it work)
Step 2 - add 'licence free' images
Step 3 - Try a test WinPE v2/v3/MSDART image - if it works - ask MS if reboot can host Recovery images

Let's get Step 1 and 2 sorted first! Why ask MS if we can do something when we don't even know if we can make it work...

[Wonko the Sane]

Step 1 - Is hosting iPXE http images on reboot feasible (i.e. does it work)
Step 2 - add 'licence free' images
Step 3 - Try a test WinPE v2/v3/MSDART image - if it works - ask MS if reboot can host Recovery images

Let's get Step 1 and 2 sorted first! Why ask MS if we can do something when we don't even know if we can make it work...

Even better, let's get Step 1 and 2 sorted and then ask nothing to MS. (this way we won't be deluded IF they say "no you cannot do it").



Wonko

[Brito]

Reboot will only make available Windows PE images if/when Microsoft allows such action.

To clear any doubts, I am making available the License terms on this website: http://reboot.pro/fi...-license-terms/

Someone will be tempted to throw a rock highlighting the fact that this document is also copyrighted from MS and shouldn't be hosted here, my reply in advance: please don't troll, you know there is a difference between both cases.

[MedEvil]

you know there is a difference between both cases.

Without wanting to be a pain in the behind, which?
Both are free to download and both are not allowed to be redistributed.

[NetFanTom]

Hello!

I think this plan is an excellent idea.

The license terms are, like all terms not easy to understand.

How about if Nuno Brito would MS just ask by e-mail.
Of course only if Nuno Brito agrees.

https://support.micr...1539&ws=support

Regards,
NetFanTom

[sambul61]

There is no need to ask someone's permission to do anything that one doesn't feel is illegal - you ARE permitted doing it regardless of others opinions. If an IP rights holder feels different they will let you know - don't worry... And this is the ONLY consequence, if one agrees with them and complies, but again you don't have to, because they might be wrong, as their "generic" vision may not fit with your local law or its interpretation by you (if there is no an official interpretation or precedent).

[NetFanTom]

There is no need to ask someone's permission to do anything that one does not feel is illegal

I give you right.
But I'm still asking for.That can hurt in any way.

Regards

[sambul61]

No-one can give a permission to do something stated illegal, unless special clauses or loopholes exist in the law (such as License to Kill for James Bond ). One may ask for clarification of any issues, but such requests I guess won't be answered to avoid License Terms interpretation on case by case basis, unless its Terms are changed by a signed Contract.

[NetFanTom]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

No offense. – None taken.

NetFanTom

[MedEvil]

I jave phoned a bit around and there is no lawyer known in Germany, which deals with "Intenet Law", only some that deal with german law and its application to the Internet.

I asked especialy about a case, where company owner is located in country A, company in country B, server in country C, download is done from county D. Unless something is legal/illegal in all 4 countries, noone can give a definitiv answer upfront. This is a huge grey area.

Things are so complicated/uncertain, that even big companies, like M$, with a rather big legal department, write into the EULA rather "unless overruled by local law" than to create one, specific to each country.
So the EULA is rather a list of wishes of M$, than a document to look up legal aspects.

The only way to be sure in legal questions, is to stay local, 100%!

[Brito]

So the EULA is rather a list of wishes of M$, than a document to look up legal aspects.

I believe it is more ethical to follow Microsoft wishes on this case. In due fairness, we like to see our own software license terms to be respected by whomever. It makes more sense to ask MS for formal authorization (which I never personally tried) than override these license terms even if local law does not restrict us from distribution.

This is my view over this situation.

[sambul61]

Or do things one believes are reasonable and lawful, i.e. not harmful to anyone, until proven otherwise.

For example, can someone demonstrate how booting an unaltered WinPE over network and using it for PC service can harm MS, despite WinPE is freely available for download and use for PC service by anyone?

Btw, network boot is NOT distribution.