A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

XP OEM - Interesting conversation with MS employee



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old May 11th 05, 02:18 AM
kurttrail
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bruce Chambers wrote:
Woody wrote:


from what Mike Brannigan , an MS employee and frequent poster , has
been saying of late is that it's up to the oem to determine when the
original machine is no longer the original machine . definately a
major retreat from earlier interpretations of the ms oem eula .



No, that's no "retreat." That's what the official policy, as stated
by Microsoft employees, has always been.


Tell it to Lameboy, and his password-protected system builder web page!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"


  #32  
Old May 11th 05, 02:21 AM
Carey Frisch [MVP]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bruce has "character" and is 100% honest!

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/secu...xp/choose.mspx

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"T. Waters" wrote:
|
| Bruce your explanation of OEM support of Windows XP was very enlightening
| You got to the actual point of limiting the OEM to the first machine. So I
| found it odd that you summed up that brilliant and rational explanation with
| a simplistic statement as to the morals of a person who moves OEM XP to
| another computer. They are not violating the MS intent of freeing the OEM
| from supporting an OS on a computer the OEM did not build! Are you devoutly
| religious, by any chance?



---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0519-0, 05/09/2005
Tested on: 5/10/2005 8:21:27 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com



  #33  
Old May 11th 05, 02:22 AM
Leythos
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 11 May 2005 00:28:46 GMT, Leythos
wrote:


I also said that it's up to each person to interpret what MS means until
the actually call MS and ask for clarification - which I don't expect
many to admit to doing.


That's where you went wrong. MS cannot LATER clarify,
further restrict a license.

There is nothing a call to MS can tell you that isn't
already in the license as shipped.

I'm not suggesting it would be fair to upgrade the entire
system a piece and a time and think an OEM license is still
valid for it, BUT on the other hand neither the seller nor
buyer of the license can further redefine it later.


I'm not taking sides, it seemed it would be good, legal or not, to get
an official MS stated position that could be references as FROM A MS
Legal department.

I actually don't care one way or the other if anyone does anything,
really, I don't care, I quit caring about 5 months ago. I also don't
make any attempt to sway anyone into thinking one way or another. I have
only mentioned what I've read on the MS site, seen in posted (web) MS
documents, and how I handle it myself.

Since I don't care how you handle it, or Kurt or Alias, and since I'm
only presenting that MS has documents that clarify their position on the
OEM site, there is no argument to be entered into - you can do what you
want.

I only sent the email to my partner contact for the benefit of myself
and those that ask - I never suggested that it would be a legal binding
or that it would change any agreements already in place. Sheesh, I just
wanted an official MS clarification on it so that I could have the
information.

Again, I don't care what anyone does, what their orientation is, what
they like (beer/wine coolers), now many times they install the same XP
key, what parts they change - why can't people see that. All I said is
that MS has documents that explain their position to OEM's. I don't care
if you want or don't want to read them, or even if you do / don't agree
with them - I'm not asking you to. I just made the statement that they
exist, that was it.

--
--

remove 999 in order to email me
  #36  
Old May 11th 05, 02:26 AM
kurttrail
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

kony wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2005 23:42:05 GMT, Leythos
wrote:



Actually, you can call MS and ask for Licensing information, not the
activation drones, MS proper and ask for a email/document explaining
licensing.


No, you quite specifically cannot do this.
It is not binding to add terms and not legal to try to
enfore them. Of all possible avenues, MS cannot supply you
with "Further" details about a license that weren't already
part of that license. If someone simply can't find their
EULA then they might be SOL.


In the grand scheme of software licensing, it's up to you to
determine what is right/wrong and what you feel you can get away
with. Some of us are hard-line and purchase a OEM copy considering
that additional MS documents call the Motherboard the defining
component,


That's not "hard-line", that's ignorance.
If the license agreement that came with the product
specifies the motherboard, then it is (a) defining
component. It is improper and pointless to make any mention
at all of "additional MS documents". If those documents had
told you that you are bound to reformat your hard drive
every 7 days, would you do that too?


while others look
at the EULA and say that the power cord could be the single defining
component. It's all in what you are comfortable with until you ASK MS
legal what they mean.


No reasonable person will conclude the power cord is a
defining component, UNLESS the license was purchased with
that cord, if the EULA allows it.

It is NOT "what you are comfortable with until you ask MS
legal".

MS legal cannot add, subtract, or redefine a EULA after the
sale.


Amen!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"


  #38  
Old May 11th 05, 02:35 AM
kurttrail
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Leythos wrote:
In article ,
says...
In the grand scheme of software licensing, it's up to you to
determine what is right/wrong and what you feel you can get away
with. Some of us are hard-line and purchase a OEM copy considering
that additional MS documents call the Motherboard the defining
component,


That's not "hard-line", that's ignorance.
If the license agreement that came with the product
specifies the motherboard, then it is (a) defining
component. It is improper and pointless to make any mention
at all of "additional MS documents". If those documents had
told you that you are bound to reformat your hard drive
every 7 days, would you do that too?


So, if I were a registered OEM, having agreed to the OEM agreements,
you are saying that I should ignore the documents on the OEM site
that I've already read concerning the definitions of terms before I
sign my OEM agreement?

Dude, you missed my point, I never suggested that anyone was bound by
the clarification, only informed by it, not bound by it - come down
off the soap-box.


If you aren't bound by it, then you really isn't worth the toilet paper
I used to wipe my ass with today!

And neither my used toilet paper or you non-binding web page has any
place in this thread!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"


  #39  
Old May 11th 05, 02:41 AM
Leythos
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
says...
Leythos wrote:
In article ,

says...
In the grand scheme of software licensing, it's up to you to
determine what is right/wrong and what you feel you can get away
with. Some of us are hard-line and purchase a OEM copy considering
that additional MS documents call the Motherboard the defining
component,

That's not "hard-line", that's ignorance.
If the license agreement that came with the product
specifies the motherboard, then it is (a) defining
component. It is improper and pointless to make any mention
at all of "additional MS documents". If those documents had
told you that you are bound to reformat your hard drive
every 7 days, would you do that too?


So, if I were a registered OEM, having agreed to the OEM agreements,
you are saying that I should ignore the documents on the OEM site
that I've already read concerning the definitions of terms before I
sign my OEM agreement?

Dude, you missed my point, I never suggested that anyone was bound by
the clarification, only informed by it, not bound by it - come down
off the soap-box.


If you aren't bound by it, then you really isn't worth the toilet paper
I used to wipe my ass with today!

And neither my used toilet paper or you non-binding web page has any
place in this thread!


It had as much place as a statement about a conversation with a
contractor that does PA without any real knowledge of licensing rules or
documents for the product they are activating.

I never claimed it was worth anything to anyone, it's just as good an
information source as you provide.

--
--

remove 999 in order to email me
  #40  
Old May 11th 05, 02:43 AM
Bruce Chambers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

T. Waters wrote:



Bruce your explanation of OEM support of Windows XP was very enlightening
You got to the actual point of limiting the OEM to the first machine.



Thank you.


So I
found it odd that you summed up that brilliant and rational explanation with
a simplistic statement as to the morals of a person who moves OEM XP to
another computer.



What's "simplistic" about it? In this situation, the purchaser of the
OEM license agrees to abide by the terms of the EULA, and then
subsequently reneges on his agreement and installs the OEM license
elsewhere. This indicates quite clearly that this person's given word,
or signature on a contract, for that matter, cannot be trusted. If
he'll break the agreement to abide by the EULA, he cannot be trusted not
to break any other agreements.



Are you devoutly
religious, by any chance?




No. Why do you feel the need to be so gratuitously insulting? Every
religion I know of is the very anti-thesis of integrity - they're all
founded on self-delusion.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Interesting Memo Brad Licatesi Dell Computers 13 March 31st 05 06:16 AM
Interesting benchmarks johns Ati Videocards 5 July 23rd 04 07:17 PM
HP an interesting article Mickey Printers 6 May 27th 04 05:13 PM
amd 64bits interesting? Kriss General 9 September 24th 03 09:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.