I originally posted the message to the main list, but it didn't appear so I
assume the filter ate it. I had hoped that if Paul didn't have the answer he
would put it on the main list for me. Microsoft is (deliberately I think)
very vague about this, but if you dig deep enough you can find it on the OEM
system builder pages (from which I am now banned). You won't get your
answer by calling 1-800-areulegit or BSA or SPA. All any of them is
interested in is obtaining the names of people or businesses to threaten or
sue. You will get nothing from piracy@microsoft.com but automated responses
telling you to call 1-800-areulegit. By Microsoft's definition a computer
becomes a new computer when you upgrade the motherboard. You can upgrade
any other part or parts. In my example I mentioned motherboard and cpu
because in the real world the only reason to upgrade a motherboard is to
enable you to upgrade something else, such as a faster cpu, more memory or
new kind of bus for that fancy new video card (I suppose one could upgrade a
motherboard solely for better (larger, faster) onboard cache, but I think
that's a stretch). Any Microsoft OEM licenses sold bundled with a new
computer legally follow the motherboard ultimately right to the landfill or
incinerator. All of this applies only to the OEM license. Full retail
versions can be transferred, but cost about twice as much. You can also get
an "Open License" but these must be registered with Microsoft and are
subject to periodic audit. The example I gave was deliberately simplified
in attempt to accomplish a specific objective. The reality is that this
company hired me to perform a Y2K audit and develop a remediation plan. In
the course of this I discovered that in spite of shelling out many thousands
of dollars, following the advise of a fully qualified (certified)
consultant, making all of their purchases from a large well known commercial
retailer and doing all of it in good faith with never the slightest thought
of cheating or cutting corners, all of their Microsoft software was legally
worthless. When I told them this they were stunned and at first did not
believe it. It was difficult and stressful. Ultimately they decided to buy
all new licenses because they wanted the problem solved immediately and
since they qualified for the Microsoft Open License for Charities program
the hit was only a few thousand dollars instead of the tens of thousands a
for-profit corporation would have had to pay. They have agreed to let me
set up a Linux server and workstation to test and evaluate as a potential
replacement for Microsoft so they never have to go through this sort of
thing again. I am of course real excited about this, I've lurked on the
slug list (with few and far between comments) and dabbled with Linux on my
little home network for a couple years now, this is my first chance to put
it in practice in the real world. You will most certainly be seeing more of
me with questions and pleas for help.
Yes, some of you can tell I am using Windows. It is still easier for me to
get stuff done, primarily supporting Windows users if I use Windows (The
Linux version of VNC, for example, really sucks compared to the Windows
version). For a while I had 10 partitions on this hard drive multi-boot
with four different Linux distributions and Windows, all more or less
working. It wasn't stable though and eventually crashed.
Ok, I tire. I repeat my original request for help finding some links to web
sites that explain, in lay-person terms, the limitations imposed by
Microsoft's licensing terms, so that I can say to potential future converts
"Hey, don't take my word for it, go to such and such site and read all about
it for yourself."
> -----Original Message-----
> From: slug-politics@nks.net [mailto:slug-politics@nks.net]On Behalf Of
> Paul M Foster
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 5:54 PM
> To: slug-politics@nks.net
> Subject: Re: [SLUG-POL] FW: Explaining the benefits of Linux
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 01:05:09AM -0400, Norbert Cartagena wrote:
>
> > Paul M Foster wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 10:21:51PM -0400, Dennis Tribble wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I went to a jobsite where I was asked to upgrade the
> motherboard and cpu in
> > > > a pc running OEM version of MS Windows. When I told them
> they would also
> > > > have to purchase a new license for Windows they said I was
> crazy and asked
> > > > me to leave.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Um, I'm not sure why they need to get a new Windows license.
> Presumably
> > > they already have a license for the copy they're using. I wasn't aware
> > > that normal Windows licenses were that restrictive. I would
> assume that
> > > if Windows woke up with the same hard drive but a different cpu, it
> > > would ponder a bit and adjust itself. I haven't read the
> license, but I
> > > assume that it says the user has the right to use _this_ copy
> of Windows
> > > on their machine (regardless of whether it's OEM or not).
> > >
> > > Paul
> >
> >
> > But woudldn't it be considered a new machine if they got a new
> > motherboard AND processor, ergo neding a new licence for Windows? I
> > mean, that's how I thought it worked. The license does not pertain to
> > the owner and his rights, but rather to the ability of the owner to put
> > it on one and only one machine (if you read the license carefully you
> > also notice that technically you don't OWN the software, you merely rent
> > it for a one time fee of $xxx.xx (at least pre-"We've caught you in the
> > .NET")). Technically a functional computer consists of a motherboard,
> > processor and RAM. Keyboard, video card and monitor make it semi-useful,
> > a hard drive and disk drives make it fully functional for presonal use
> > and everything else is just details. This is why it's technically
> > illegal to sell your old copy of Windows when oyu decide that GNU/Linux
> > (or *BSD if you're a hardcore massochist) is the way to go.
> >
>
> Yeah, but when does your computer become not your computer? If I change
> out a display card, is it a new computer? I'll bet the Microsoft license
> doesn't spell this out. It probably only says you can run the software
> on _one_ computer. Which will be the case if you change out the MB.
>
> > By the way, shouldn't this conversation (at least the main question) be
> > in the regular list? I mean, you could probably get more sources and....
> > hey, Ed's not on Politics, is he? Ed, you got any links for this? ;)
> > *hee hee hee*
> >
>
> Well, it could have been a volatile issue, though it doesn't seem to
> have turned out that way.
>
> I think Ed avoids politics. I think it's too contentious for him.
>
> Paul
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:45:25 EDT