[plug] [OT] M$ EULA (was: Schools [taken] out today?)

[Ryan]

> What constitutes the original machine? Does it mean you can't change
any 
> of the hardware that came with the machine?  The CPU? The MB?  The
case?
>
> skribe

The CMOS battery? Jumpers? Dust that was in the fan before you bought
it?  

You can also buy a piece of RAM with the OEM license and never 'build'
the computer until M$ ask you to show them (via a court order) the
computer the license is assigned to.  This is known in my world as 'M$
OEM EULA quantum superposition theory' ... M$ licensing, or more
specifically the way users implement it, actually has a lot in common
with quantum theory if you look into it :)

> Russel Hobman said:
> skribe, I think that because the OS is installed on your HDD then it
is
>probably just your HDD, at least with the older MS OS this is so.

The intention of the license transfer restrictions in the EULAs is
clearly to ensure a steady revenue stream for M$.  Swapping the same HDD
into 5 different machines over a period of 10 years and keeping the same
license kind of defeats this intention. The old M$ EULAs refer to the
item in question simply as a 'COMPUTER' and provide no definition.
Don't get the wrong idea of me from that paragraph :)  ... read on ...

I haven't seen newer XP EULAs (except for excerpts about installing
remote-management software *choke*), nor I am a lawyer; so get out the
salt ... for older EULAs that are still relevant:

I interpret 'COMPUTER' as 'COMPUTER+USER' and personally refuse to
honour Microsoft OEM EULAs as they can not provide me adequate
information to 'dispose' of the license when I retire various parts of
the machine that are _components_ of the _whole_ 'COMPUTER'.  If the
user changes, I'm not going to re-license it, so why should I if I
change other components?  The EULAs that I have do not provide a way for
M$ to modify them in the future, so they can not provide a definition of
'COMPUTER' that is legally binding.  I would absolutely 'LOVE' to take
this to court, if I had money and M$ didn't.  If anybody holds an
'M$-EULA-precedent' party, please invite me :)

I feel a Judge would have great difficulty upholding Microsoft's obvious
intention when the subject of its control is a non-distinct box
comprising numerous components; each arguably vital to the operation of
the unit, and each equally dispensable in the event of a failure, and
all without any form of definition.  *gasp for air*

But that is all just speculation, so there was no real point saying it
all :P

> Linux OS now eh! cheers, Russell.

Three cheers for Russell :)

Ryan

----------------------------
'Moderation is a virtue only
 in those who are thought to
     have an alternative'

      - Henry Kissinger