> -----Original Message-----
> From: slug-politics@nks.net [mailto:slug-politics@nks.net]On Behalf Of
> Paul M Foster
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 11:21 PM
> To: slug-politics@nks.net
> Subject: Re: [SLUG-POL] FW: Explaining the benefits of Linux
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 10:24:27PM -0400, Da Weight wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Don't know why it didn't show up on the list. Maybe HTML? The filters on
> the current (NKS) list are less stringent than they were with Owl River,
> so fewer things would bounce, I imagine.
doh! I posted it to owlriver. I will attempt to post the original to the
main list.
> > 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.
>
> This is the license Microsoft has with the OEM, or the license the user
> has with Microsoft? I'm assuming from your comments that you've
> researched this fully, and so your interpretation is correct. And
> although you're probably technically correct about how Microsoft views
> it, it may be that in the real world Microsoft/BSA don't want the
> headache of trying to make a case like this stick. Imagine that someone
> got OEM Windows on 25 machines, changed MBs on all machines, and
> maintained their OEM Windows copies on those same machines. I can
> imagine that if BSA came knocking on their door, they wouldn't want to
> prosecute the case, given the horrible press it would create.
They would not have to take it to court, as far as I know all cases so far
have been settled out of court.
> This is a
> far cry from twenty identical copies of Windows and one set of CD-ROMs
> for them. Aside from which, there's a key for each Windows CD-ROM that's
> undoubtedly unique for each copy that the OEM sends out. If you can
> prove that this machine's copy is from this CD-ROM, it's hard to make a
> case, no matter what the license actually says.
>
> Another point here is that you're probably the only person in the Tampa
> Bay area who's aware of this little wrinkle. So how many disgruntled
> ex-employees are going to call BSA about it?
You and Norb know now, and it will spread exponentially.
>
> My point is that there is the strictly legal and then there is the
> maybe-not-strictly-legal-but-reasonable-and-unenforceable. You handled
> it in the strictly legal way, which is the safest. Your client can't
> complain much, if you've completely covered their asses.
>
This particular client does not want to hide behind any
"maybe-not-strictly-legal-but-reasonable-and-unenforceable", they want to be
strictly legal.
I have researched this aspect as well. While many companies have been
threatened, very few lawsuits have actually been filed for this type of
"violation". Microsoft usually gives you 30 days to "get legal" and most
companies just do it. Most of Microsoft's piracy lawsuits involve companies
who are selling counterfeit copies outright or selling pre-installed systems
without proper licensing and continue to do so after being warned. I have
personal knowledge of one company that settled out of court for $250,000
(yes that's 1/4 million) because they upgraded about 100 boxen and just
assumed that their MS OEM licenses would still be good. For some reason
they thought that disassembling and throwing the old boxen in the dumpster,
rather than donating them to charity, was important, but it was not to BSA.
I have not been able to find any case where "illegal motherboard upgrading"
has actually been tested in court. I'd sure like to read about it, not be
part of it.
BTW, if BSA gets a tip. they just file suit. You don't get a grace period.
Again, so far as I can determine, every case so far has been settled out of
court for between 10 and 250 thousand dollars.
> <snip>
>
> > 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."
>
> You're probably on the wrong list for that kind of info. I don't know
> how many people here follow the intricacies of Microsoft's byzantine
> licenses.
>
I know I am on the right list. Most of the people here are free thinkers,
not the case on any MS list!
> OTOH, I don't think your final explanation was all that bad. OEM Windows
> licenses define a computer essentially as a motherboard. The license
> goes with the original motherboard. Get rid of that, and your license to
> that software is null and void. Will your customers buy that? Probably
> not. In fact, it probably won't be easy no matter how you explain it,
> because it's too incredible to believe. So I'd explain it, and then hand
> them a copy of the OEM license and tell them to have their lawyers look
> it over if they don't believe you. Then explain to them the consequences
> if a disgruntled ex-employee (or consultant!) decides to turn them in.
>
We do not want to cause harm to the client, we want to educate (and,
hopefully, sell additional services to) them.
Dennis
> Paul
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:38:14 EDT