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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Carey Frisch [MVP] wrote:
Bruce has "character" and is 100% honest! This is like having OJ say that Tony Blake is "100% not guilty" too! -- 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" |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, Bruce, for sounding insulting. In my mind, you sounded like some
orthodox practioners of religion I know. I guess it is just a question of priorities. For me, it is infinitely more important that people wash their hands after using the restroom than that they abide by the OEM rules in the MS EULA., and I mean this seriously. Bruce Chambers wrote: 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. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
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. If I buy a keyboard with my OEM WinXP Pro x64, as one purveyor has been offering, can I change anything on the original computer on which I installed the OS as long as I use the same keyboard? Even stranger is the fact that the keyboard is not even included in the hash function used to indicate a change in OS installation. Am I missing something here? -- Virg Wall |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
T. Waters wrote:
Sorry, Bruce, for sounding insulting. Accepted. In my mind, you sounded like some orthodox practioners of religion I know. For my clarification then, and so as to avoid such a misunderstanding in the future, could you tell me just how I "sounded" hypocritical? Surely the desire for integrity in one's business partners and other - even social - associates isn't dependent upon superstition. I guess it is just a question of priorities. For me, it is infinitely more important that people wash their hands after using the restroom than that they abide by the OEM rules in the MS EULA., and I mean this seriously. Not to discount your perfectly valid concern for sanitation and personal hygiene, does this mean that you don't care when people lie to you or break their promises to you? Set aside the subject of a Microsoft EULA - this comes down to basic honesty, period. It doesn't matter to whom a promise is made, with whom an agreement or contract is made, or what specifics the promise, agreement , or contract concerns. A broken promise is a broken promise. I don't see how a person who reneges on an agreement to anyone else - even an "anonymous" corporate entity - can be trusted to keep one with me; the reneger (is that a word?) has clearly and irrefutably demonstrated his untrustworthiness. -- 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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 11 May 2005 01:25:13 GMT, 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? No, why would you assime I'm saying that? I'm saying those "documents on the OEM site that I've already read... before I sign" are all there is. You cannot have MS (nor youself) further elaborate them in scope or terms after that contract is made. 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. What you wrote could be misconstrued. I clarified my opinion on it, and what I believe to be the legality involved as well. If the EULA doesn't specify "motherboard", MS can't later come back and claim it does. on the other hand, if the EULA claims use of one OEM system, one can't replace it all and then claim it's the same one OEM system either after all but a power cord has been changed. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 11 May 2005 01:22:22 GMT, Leythos
wrote: 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. No more good than MS getting an official statement from your "legal department". Believe it or not I'm not trying to be mundane or argumentative here, it's simply that one CANNOT refer to the other party in a contract for what THEY deem a contact to "mean" after they wrote it and further that point in time of sale has passed. Their interpretation of it after the fact is no more valid than anyone else's, specifically a court's if we want to nit-pick. 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. I can appreciate that and I'm not necessarily trying to convince you otherwise, but for the benefit of others it is good to make it known that there is nothing that contacting MS can do for them. What is not "clear" in a contact cannot later be pointed out by one of the two parties involved and be binding on the other. 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 agree that in some circumstances those docs may cover current licensing, when they're referred to in that license agreement. I was never referred to those and I don't know anyone who was when talking about single-OEM-system license. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 10 May 2005 19:43:41 -0600, Bruce Chambers
wrote: What's "simplistic" about it? In this situation, the purchaser of the OEM license agrees to abide by the terms of the EULA, At this point you're making a giant leap. How many people do you know that reviewed and accepted the EULA before there was any penalty involved in declining it? Is that EULA even stated on the outside of the packing? Myself and many others are aware of the need to review these EULAs, but the average OEM system purchaser- I highly doubt they agree to anything ahead of purchase time, except to pay X amount for Y system. That's not necessarily pointing blame at MS, nor the customer, rather there is not a standardized mechanism in place for acceptance of softwrae EULAs and a decline of that EULA before the customer enters into the sale agreement. Only prior customers buying same thing a second time may be fully aware of the EULA, IF they can assume it hasn't changed. and then subsequently reneges on his agreement and installs the OEM license elsewhere. I feel the average person does know this can't be done, that their license is meant for one system only. They may not realize it can't be transferred to another system though, until they research it. This is part of the core problem, that they weren't fully informed of this PRIOR to the sale. This indicates quite clearly that this person's given word, or signature on a contract, for that matter, cannot be trusted. When did they give their word or sign the EULA? I agree more than a little bit with your concept but in it's application it's not a valid argument. If he'll break the agreement to abide by the EULA, he cannot be trusted not to break any other agreements. Nonsense. Somewhere there's somone who doesn't like some particular thing _you_ do, and could make similar excuse for hassling you... and it's just an excuse, people are still innocent until proven guilty, and guilty of only that which they've done, not that which you "assume" they might do because you argue it into being some "remotely similar" thing. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
kurttrail wrote:
Leythos wrote: 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. Since MS doesn't support OEM software and it is up to the OEM to support MS software, it is only logical that it is up to the OEM to determine when they'll stop support the software after upgrading the hardware. Since I am my own OEM, my computer is never not my computer, no matter how much I upgrade it. I don't WANT OR NEED to have MS tell me what is right and wrong with my copy of software on my hardware! They have absolutely no right to know what I do in the privacy of MY home! Yabut, remember when MickeyMouse made you agree to a new EULA when you picked up a security patch? I don't imagine very many users read that sh*t everytime a new patch or SP comes out, but be warned. It has happened and will probably continue to happen. When MickeyMouse is finished with you, you will have signed away ALL PRIVACY on your system to them. If you've got your computer updated to the latest security patch, you've already given MickeyMouse admin privileges to your box. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/06...ch_eula_gives/ -- ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°øø¤º°`°ø,¸¸ ,ø¤º°`°ø Windows is *NOT* a virus. Viruses are small and efficient. A brief overview of Windows' most serious design flaws http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/...IhateMS_A.html |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
"Bruce Chambers" wrote in message ... 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. People don't want that degree of honesty. Most would never hire a 100% honest tax agent, lawer, employee, whatever. They want someone who can bend the rules just enough. Michael |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |