| Recent Posts | About the Author | Navigation |
|---|---|---|
|
|
David is an occasional blogger, software engineer, Nintendo fanboy, liberal, news magazine addict, voracious TiVo user, and bibliophile. He was born in St. Louis, grew up in southern Indiana, and returned to St. Louis to attend Washington University. He hasn't managed to escape yet. He's a fan of free wine tastings, too many tv shows to name, and eating out. David makes his living developing web applications used internally by his employer. He doesn't blog about work because he's heard too many stories about that causing workplace troubles. There's more on the about page. |
|
| Recent Comments | ||
|
|
||
| Recent Photos | ||
|
|
||
26 January 2005 - 3:47 pm
So a headline on slashdot today was "MS To Limit Security Fixes to Legal Copies of Windows" (emphasis mine). The article goes on to say that
An Associated Press artcile [sic] on MSNBC is reporting that Microsoft is going to start restricting access to security updates from pirated copies of its Windows operating systems. Starting in mid 2005, if you have a pirated copy of Windows, the only way to obtain security updates will be through the automatic updates mechanism. And even that method may be restricted at a future date. The article is light on details about what versions of Windows this will affect. Parts of the system to check for a valid copy of Windows is already used when downloading software (such as Media Player) from Microsoft - except that validation is currently optional.
Where did that headline come from? Are pirated copies legal?
Posted by on 26 January 2005 at 3:48 PM
Comments