Change Windows Splash Screen - Legal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter רמי
  • Start date Start date
×

רמי

Hey,

My company developes an enterprise application for close companies.
As part of our product, we replace the winlogon shell from explorer to
our application main entry,
And the windows splash screen to our logo.

My question is - is it legal?
If not, is there a legal way of doing it - by asking permission from
Microsoft or adding a small icon of Microsoft in our logo as well?

Thanks alot

--sternr
 
Hey,
My company developes an enterprise application for close companies.
As part of our product, we replace the winlogon shell from explorer to
our application main entry,
And the windows splash screen to our logo.

My question is - is it legal?
If not, is there a legal way of doing it - by asking permission from
Microsoft or adding a small icon of Microsoft in our logo as well?

Thanks alot

--sternr
Click to expand...

This group is not the company Microsoft; it's just a newsgroup on MS
servers. I'd go directly to MS web site to ask your question.
Since these are systems that are being distributed, I'd imagine there
are definitely some legal aspects to it. Why not just add an "enhanced"
area to the original MS screen? At least then it wouldn't hide the OS.
IMO, a machine that booted as you indicate, would make me suspicious
and I'd wonder what else had been bastardized in the OS and even whether
it was even actually Mircosoft's.
Or, add a suffixed splash screen; have two of them somehow.

My 2 ¢ and that might be all it's worth too.

Twayne
 
??? said:
Hey,

My company developes an enterprise application for close companies.
As part of our product, we replace the winlogon shell from explorer to
our application main entry,
And the windows splash screen to our logo.

My question is - is it legal?
If not, is there a legal way of doing it - by asking permission from
Microsoft or adding a small icon of Microsoft in our logo as well?

Thanks alot

--sternr
Click to expand...
Aren't there any lawyers to ask at your company? It should be reasonably
easy for them to find out.

Bill
 
רמי said:
Hey,

My company developes an enterprise application for close companies.
As part of our product, we replace the winlogon shell from explorer to
our application main entry,
Click to expand...

That is perfectly legal, you can use whatever you want for your shell.
And the windows splash screen to our logo.
Click to expand...

Replacing the Windows XP splash screen violates the Microsoft EULA.

John
 
John John (MVP) wrote (in
That is perfectly legal, you can use whatever you want for your shell.


Replacing the Windows XP splash screen violates the Microsoft EULA.
Click to expand...

Really? I know that you can replace the shell (LiteStep, etc.), but all those
bootscreen editors are illegal? I was recently wondering what ever happen to
them all; for a while they were hot stuff and everywhere, but now it’s hard to
find any. I figured it was just because it was too hard to keep updating the
apps to accomodate the kernel updates.
 
Alec said:
John John (MVP) wrote (in



Really? I know that you can replace the shell (LiteStep, etc.), but all those
bootscreen editors are illegal? I was recently wondering what ever happen to
them all; for a while they were hot stuff and everywhere, but now it’s hard to
find any. I figured it was just because it was too hard to keep updating the
apps to accomodate the kernel updates.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that those editors are illegal, I didn't even talk about
these tools. All I said is that repalacing the Windows XP Splach screen
violates the EULA. Cars that go 280 KM/hr are not illegal, but in
almost all jurisdictions driving at that speed is.

John
 
John John (MVP) wrote (in
I didn't say that those editors are illegal, I didn't even talk about
these tools. All I said is that repalacing the Windows XP Splach screen
violates the EULA.
Click to expand...

That’s what I meant—and technically you implied it. Using a bootscreen editor
violates the EULA? I can’t imagine the EUA specifically stating that altering
the bootscreen is not allowed; it must be implied because of another, related
disallowed action. Is it because modifying the bootscreen modifies the kernel
(file)? I can see that being disallowed… maybe.
 
Alec said:
John John (MVP) wrote (in



That’s what I meant—and technically you implied it. Using a bootscreen editor
violates the EULA? I can’t imagine the EUA specifically stating that altering
the bootscreen is not allowed; it must be implied because of another, related
disallowed action. Is it because modifying the bootscreen modifies the kernel
(file)? I can see that being disallowed… maybe.
Click to expand...

Read the EULA, or read here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms932897.aspx As for the tools
they aren't illegal, they are simply useless if you intend on respecting
the EULA. End of story.

John
 
John John (MVP) wrote (in
As for the tools they aren't illegal, they are simply useless if you
intend on respecting the EULA.
Click to expand...

What about DMCA? Anyway, I didn’t ask if the tools are illegal, I asked if using
them violates the EULA. I guess it does.

Read the EULA, or read here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms932897.aspx
Click to expand...

Well the link says “You cannot replace the Windows XP logo with a custom logo,
because doing so violates the Microsoft EULA.”, but I could not find any such
statement in the EULA. The closest thing I could find was the paragraph about
not disassembling or decompiling the Prouct, in which case what I said about the
bootscreen-kernel relationship must be correct. (Which begs the question why
Microsoft put the bootscreen in the kernel. Then again, uxthemes.dll, oh but
that must be a violation too then.) This line in the EULA is thus interesting:
“You may also need to reactivate the Product if you modify yourcomputer hardware
or alter the Product computer hardware or alter the Product.” I guess it means
that you cannot reverse-engineer Windows, but you can make random, undirected
modifications (since any non-random patches would require knowing what is being
patched, which would violate the EULA).


You know what? I’ve never run the XP EULA through EULAlyzer. I’ll do that now;
it should be interesting. :)
 
Back
Top