Hi Friends:
I found the following reasonable definition of "a hack," which would violate the Vista EULA, IMO, in Wikipedia (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack_%28technology%29):
"A Hack is usually a technique used to subvert, misuse or subtly change a program, gadget or mechanism in such a way as to change, or add to, its functionality."
And, from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (
http://webster.com/dictionary/work-around) comes the following reasonable defintion of "a computer software work around:
"a plan or method to circumvent a problem (as in computer software) without eliminating it"
I am attaching a snip from the part of the Vista EULA that is pertinent to the conclusions I draw below. I emphasize that
these conclusions pertain only to practices not specifically outlawed by the Vista EULA.
First, the snip indicates that one must "comply with any technical limitations of the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways." The snip also identifies nonexhaustively, IMO, three things that compliance disallows--referred to now as (1), (2), and (3), respectively. While I am not clear on what MS may have in mind when it spells out (1) and (3), it seems to me that neither would be possible without first doing (2) or otherwise altering Vista,
That is, without first doing (2) or otherwise altering Vista, how would I do (1)--"work around any technical limitations of the software?" In this regard, the software will either do what I want it to do, without doing (2) or otherwise altering Vista or not. If it will, then the software is not technically limited in regard to what I want it to do, and the Vista EULA would not be broken if I did it. Similarly, without first doing (2) or otherwise altering Vista, how would I do (3)--"use components of the software to run applications not running on the software?" In this case, a component of Vista will either run an application without doing (2) or otherwise altering Vista or not. If it will, then the component would be running an application that is "running on the software," and the Vista EULA would not be broken if I ran it.
Thus, my first conclusion is that, unless specifically outlawed, a procedure that does not do (2) or otherwise alters Vista does not violate the Vista EULA. Under this view, any hack, as defined above, is a EULA breaker if it does (2), otherwise alters Vista, or employs a procedure specifically outlawed by the Vista EULA. Similarly, any work around, as defined above, is a EULA breaker if it does (2), otherwise alters Vista, or employs a technique specifically outlawed by the Vista EULA.
My second conclusion is that there are procedures, which some might view initially to be Vista EULA breakers, that actually don't conflict with the Vista EULA. For example, many of us are familiar with one of the procedures for using a Vista upgrade disk to do a clean install of Vista. In this regard, my opinion is that use of these procedures is not specifically outlawed by the Vista EULA and neither requires one to do (2) or to otherwise alter Vista.
Admittedly, there is a gray area here. That is, MS provides instructions for using an upgrade disk. However, it falls short of saying that an upgrade disk can be used only consistently with its instructions--which would outlaw the upgrade disk/clean install procedure under the Vista EULA. Consistently, one well-known and well-respected Vista site,
The Vista Forums, considers using such procedures to be acceptable and, AFAIK, has not been challenged by MS in this regard.
I welcome comments and counter arguments. I am working towards a way of saying when a procedure ought to be considered to be consistent (or inconsistent) with the Vista EULA (and EULAs in general). In other words, I am working towards definitions of legal (or debateably legal) hacks and work arounds.
Incidentally, your might want to search on "Vista EULA." You might be suprised about what some see to be the highly contentious legal aspects of the Vista EULA. Still, I am yet to see anyone deal with the issue I am dealing with specifically.