EULAs (was Re: [unisog] Security Issues with Skype

Valdis.Kletnieks at Valdis.Kletnieks at
Mon May 2 16:33:17 GMT 2005

On Tue, 03 May 2005 03:48:24 +1200, Russell Fulton said:
> On the EULA issues some people pointed out that the skype eula is not
> much different to the MS one for XP (both allow the vendor to install
> whatever they like) and if we bar Skype on that grounds we should also
> ban XP.

Out of curiosity, how have other sites dealt with the following 2 issues:

1) The XP EULA granting permission for MS to install anything on machines that
you need to have change control over (I'm told HIPPA has such a requirement, and
there's probably other legal requirements for some sites as well).  (Yes, I
know that you can firewall the box - but the point is that you've still given
the *permission* for MS to do it, whether or not they actually can or do...)

2) The legal status of having an employee who does *not* have authority to sign
binding contracts for your organization (in most cases, essentially all the
worker drones in the cubicles) doing essentially that by clicking through the
EULA (for any product in this case)?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the unisog mailing list