North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: win95 and IEAK6.0
- From: Joshua Coombs
- Date: Wed Nov 21 15:38:57 2001
On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 03:25:45PM -0500, Patrick Muldoon wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf
> > Joshua Coombs
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 3:08 PM
> > To: email@example.com
> > Subject: Re: win95 and IEAK6.0
> > While it may be sooner than some would like, I've no qualms with
> > Microsoft cutting off older versions of software. Just think how
> > much smoother and stabler Win95 could have been if MS bit the bullet
> > dumped DOS/win 3.1 support?
> > In any case, why do your customers HAVE to use the latest IEAK package
> > to connect to your service? Is it not possible to keep older versions
> > on hand for older systems?
> I believe in the Microsoft Liscense for the IEAK. That when a new
> version is released you MUST upgrade to it in a reasonable amount of
> time. I am not sure about the exact wording as it has been a while
> since I messed with the IEAK.
Wow, MS left something to user intruptation in a EULA?! Heh, welp, to
me a reasonable amount of time would be, oh, 6 years? : ) In all
seriousness, I think that's one of the gray areas that push comes to
shove, one could argue against and win legally.
I'm not a lawyer though, so don't hold me to that.
- All opinions, statements and outright lies
- contained within are copyright 2001 by
- Joshua Coombs and shall not be reprinted
- or publicly displayed without ignoring this
- useless boilerplate.
> Patrick Muldoon, Network/Software Engineer
> INOC, LLC
> I am still waiting for the advent of the computer science groupie.
> > Joshua Coombs
> > * firstname.lastname@example.org
> > - All opinions, statements and outright lies
> > - contained within are copyright 2001 by
> > - Joshua Coombs and shall not be reprinted
> > - or publicly displayed without ignoring this
> > - useless boilerplate.