Deep Freeze Enterprise License Key Fix

Deep Freeze Enterprise License Key Fix

LINK >>> https://urllio.com/2t7Vt9

So is there a way to remove deep freeze enterprise manually without the password or without installing a fresh Windows? I can make permanent changes to the Windows OS using Kali's file explorer and the registry with chntpw, if that helps.

The odds of a license change fell even further earlier this year, whenLinus Torvalds made his opposition to the anti-DRM provisions of the GPLv3draft known. For some time, it appeared that Linus was alone in thatposition, however; few other developers had made public statements on thelicense. Even Linus wondered about it:The reason the poll and the whitepaper got started was that I'veobviously not been all that happy with the GPLv3, and while I waspretty sure I was not alone in that opinion, I also realize that_everybody_ thinks that they are right, and that they are supportedby all other right-thinking people. That's just how people work. Weall think we're better than average.So while I personally thought it was pretty clear that the GPLv2was the better license for the kernel, I didn't want to just dependon my own personal opinion, but I wanted to feel that I hadactually made my best to ask people.So he put together a quick discussion list involving the top 30 or sokernel developers (see the message quoted above for the the exact selectioncriteria) and held an informal poll. The results were as clear as itgets: none of the developers polled was positive about the license, andmost were strongly negative. Among this crowd of most active kerneldevelopers, nobody is prepared to say that moving to GPLv3 would be a goodthing for the kernel project to do.A subset of these developers put their names onto a separate position statement.Some of the positions taken in that statement are quite strong (seeRustyRussell's take), to the point that not all were willingto support it. It also appears that, while the anti-DRM provisions arealmost unanimously opposed, a number of developers are sympathetic to thepatent-related terms in GPLv3.The anti-DRM clauses are, indeed, at the heart of the problem. The GPLv3 draftrequires that, if somebody ships you a device which runs GPLv3-licensedcode, they must also provide you with everything required to rebuild andreinstall that code - including encryption keys if the hardware requiresthem. Those who support this language see it as a fundamental guarantee of thefreedom that comes with free software - the freedom to replace thatsoftware if need be. In particular, these people want to be able toreplace software which implements unpleasant DRM schemes or otheruser-hostile behavior.In the discussions that have followed, it is hard to find kernel developerswho support locking up content and abridging fair-use rights with DRMschemes - though some do see situations where locking down a system'ssoftware makes sense. But they see the language in the GPLv3 draft asrestricting the possible uses of their software, and they don't like it.The cure seems worse than the disease.The core question behind this whole debate, perhaps, is this: what,exactly, do we want to accomplish with our licenses? Just as there isdisagreement over what kinds of problems can be solved by passing laws,there is no consensus on which problems can be addressed with licenseterms. One can argue that oppressive DRM is a societal or legal problem,and that it should be addressed at those levels through a reaffirmation ofwhat fair-use rights should really be rather than by adopting a license whichtries to keep specific software from being used to implement DRM. Alicense can be a hefty hammer, but not every problem is a nail.Regardless of the reasoning, the fact is that the GPLv3 draft is currentlyin a difficult spot. There appears to be no way it will be adopted for the kernel inits current form; there has also been quite a bit of speculation that anumber of other important projects will either resist the new license or,possibly, fork into GPLv2 and GPLv3 versions. GPL-licensed libraries areof particular concern. The prospect of having to carry around twoversions of the C library - one for each version of the GPL - is notparticularly appealing. This is the scenario that some of the kerneldevelopers warn about in their position statement; anybody who dismisses itshould have a good reason for believing that it will not come about.There are a lot of good things in the GPLv3 draft. The updating of thelanguage for worldwide applicability is something we will almost certainlywant, sooner or later. The software patent provisions have the potentialto deter patent attacks against free software users - an importantprotection in the absence of a real fix for the patent problem. The "thiscode is not a technical protection measure" clause may offer similarprotection from some attacks based on DMCA-like laws. All of this, andmore, is worth having - but only if the new license can find acceptancefrom those who have so wholeheartedly adopted GPLv2. The Free SoftwareFoundation is going to have to make a difficult decision over the next fewmonths: it can keep the controversial terms and risk the consequences, orincrease the chances of a successful GPLv3 by dropping terms that, in itsopinion, are of fundamental importance.[Other things to see: the FSF'sresponse to the position statement and Linus Torvalds's Ode to GPLv2. There is also the announcement of the firstdiscussion draft of the GNU Free Documentation License, version 2,which almost appears to have gotten lost in the noise.]Comments (74 posted)The return of IceweaselBack in January, 2005, LWN ran anarticle about Debian and Mozilla's trademarks. In particular, the Mozillatrademark policy places strict requirements on where names like"Firefox" can be used, some of these requirements do not mix well with theDebian Free Software Guidelines. Recent events now warrant a new look atthe issue.Any distribution of Mozilla software which diverges from theofficial tarballs must use a different name unless specific approval hasbeen obtained from Mozilla. Debian's version does indeeddiffer in a number of ways. The project could seek approval from Mozillato call its version of the browser "Firefox," but that approval does nothelp others who may wish to redistribute the software after receiving itfrom Debian. Also, the Debian Firefox build omits the official logos,since they carry a non-free license; that is another change which runsafoul of the trademark rules. In the 2005 discussion, the Debian Project had seemingly come to aresolution with the Mozilla Foundation, as represented by Gervase Markham,where Debian would be trusted to make reasonable changes and the omissionof the logos was condoned. All seemed well, and Debian has been shippingFirefox under this understanding for over a year.In February of this year, however, Mike Connor from Mozilla Corporationposted abug report with the Debian project. This bug, marked "serious," statedthat shipping a browser called "Firefox" was a trademark violation:Firefox (the name) is equally protected and controlled by the sametrademark policy and legal requirements as the Firefox logo.You're free to use any other name for the browser bits, but callingthe browser Firefox requires the same approvals as are required forusing the logo and other artwork.Under the previous understanding, the Mozilla Foundation had seeminglyconcluded that it could trust Debian to be judicious in its patches toFirefox. The Mozilla Corporation, instead, is taking a harder line:To my knowledge, each patchset that deviates from what we shipshould be run by whoever is doing licensing approvals (this is inprogress with various distributions already). Its hard, if notimpossible, to define a set of guidelines that is crystal clear anddoesn't need human oversight. Novell and Red Hat already do this.The conversation then lapsed until September 18, when Mr. Connorrestarted it. His position has not softened:In that light, you should consider this, as I previously said,notice that your usage of the trademark is not permitted in thisway, and we are expecting a resolution. If your choice is to ceaseusage of the trademark rather than bend the DFSG a little, that isyour decision to make.Anybody familiar with the Debian Project will know that asking it to "bendthe DFSG a little" tends not to go over very well.Mozilla's immediate complaint is about the omission of the official logo, achange which had seemingly been approvedback in 2005. But Mr. Connor is also taking issue with a number of theother patches shipped by Debian, and has repeatedly said that every patchthat the distribution applies must be approved by the Mozilla Corporationahead of time.So what happened to the previous understanding? It appears that the shiftto the Mozilla Corporation has brought a new approach to trademark policies- and new people into the trademark enforcement role. Meanwhile, theunderstanding that the Debian Project thought it had was never reallycodified onto a piece of paper with the requisite signatures - and, as aresult, it is easy for the Mozilla Corporation to change. A cardinal rulefor dealing with corporations is to always assume that the people you aredealing with will soon be replaced by others with a much more hostile attitude;that would appear to be what has happened here. With regard to the logo:Fair enough, [Gervase Markham] did make that statement. At thetime, we obviously weren't taking that part seriously. We are now,and we're saying its not ok.The Debian developers have no intention of going against Mozilla's wishes. Eric Dorland, one of the Debian Firefox maintainers, did ask for some time,however:If this isn't possible, could we at least get a stay of execution?Etch is going into deep freeze in less than a month. Would it bepossible to resolve this after the release?The response was not particularly sympathetic:I would think it makes much more sense to resolve this before youput another long-lived release into the wild, unless your aim is todelay compliance. Ignoring the logo issue entirely, I have graveconcerns around the nature and quality of some of the changes thepatchset contains, and I would like to see the changes as a set ofspecific patches before I could make any recommendation as towhether we should continue to allow use of the trademark. If wewere forced to revoke your permission to use the trademark, freezestate would not matter, you would be required to change allaffected packages as soon as possible. Its not a nice thing to do,but we would do it if necessary, and we have done so before.Eric also asked for clarification on the patch review policy, wondering ifit applied even to security updates. The answer was clear:Yes, if you are shipping a browser called Firefox, we should besigning off on every deviation from what we ship. Yes, its timeconsuming, and yes, I can find more entertaining ways to spend mytime, but its a necessary evil.As for your straw man about security bugs, what security bugs wouldyou be fixing with your own patches? If there are security bugs,they should be fixed upstream, not in your own tree.Many people do not consider security to be a "straw man," however. Debianstable currently includes Firefox 1.0.4, which is no longer supported bythe Mozilla developers. So Debian must backport its own security fixes,and may not want to wait for the Mozilla bureaucracy to review those fixesbefore putting them out. The Mozilla response here is that users shouldsimply be force-upgraded to a supported version; that is, indeed, what anumber of distributors do, but people are not always happy about it. Thereare not many other projects which force upgrades in this manner.The end result of all this, as expressed by Steve Langasek:Given your subsequent comments indicating that the MozillaFoundation reserves the right to revoke trademark grants forreleased versions of Debian, I don't see that we have any choicebut to discontinue our use of the marks.Eric Dorland has stated that he will be changing the name of the browsersoon. Previously, this scenario has been described as the "Iceweasel"approach - but Eric has not said what name he will be using. He has askedif Debian sarge can continue to ship "firefox," or whether the name willhave to be changed in the stable distribution; that question has not yetbeen answered.Debian is not the only project to express some frustration with Mozilla;consider this message sent to the Fedoraadvisory board in August on why Firefox security updates tend to beslow in coming:Also you have to take into account that firefox.org doesn't careabout Linux. They produce "updates" that are first Windowsprecompiled binaries. Their Linux stuff is still in CVS, not eventarball released yet, so we have to try and take a CVS snapshot ortroll through CVS logs to find the right patch. They also don'tseem to care about vendorsec, or if they do its a token notice andnonsensical embargo dates. The last one I noticed was set to bereleased in the middle of a global holiday (Easter).See also this message from lastJune on problems the Ubuntu developers have had in keeping Firefoxsecure in their distribution.The Mozilla project has, mainly via the Firefox browser, changed the waypeople work with the web. It has brought millions of people into thecommunity of free software users and ended the destructive domination of asingle, proprietary browser. Firefox is good stuff, and we are far richerfor its existence.One cannot help wondering, however, if the Mozilla Corporation, now one year old,isn't losing touch with the free software community it is ostensibly part of.Releasing software under a free license means losing control over whathappens to it, but Mozilla appears to be having a hard time letting go.The result makes life harder for Linux distributors, and for Linux users aswell. Nobody really wants to fork Firefox. The Mozilla Corporation, however,would appear to be requiring distributors to do exactly that, whether theywant to or not. No distributor has any interest in shipping Iceweasel, butit appears that a number of us will be using it anyway - or, perhaps,looking harder at some of the other free browsers out there.Comments (82 posted)Highlights from Linux Kongress September 27, 2006 2b1af7f3a8