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"

Leythos wrote:
> In article <#(E-Mail Removed)>,
> (E-Mail Removed) says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>> (E-Mail Removed) 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!


A lilly-livered sycophantic yes-man like you NEEDS some Authority-Figure
to tell you how to conform, and when to bend over and spread your
cheeks!

--
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"

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

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.

VWWall wrote:
> 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, the keyboard has nothing to do with it.
The consensus within this group leans towards the power cord as the
irreducible essence of a "computer." (;-)

In article <NIdge.518$(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> 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?

The vendor I purchase OEM software through sells all MS OEM products and
only requires a hardware purchase, a MS Mouse is about $14, so it's
cheap enough to not really count.

--
--
(E-Mail Removed)
remove 999 in order to email me

VWWall wrote:
> 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?

Yeah, your are expecting sh*t about software licensing to be logical,
and it is as logical as software companies complaing about software
piracy when the piracy rate is lower now than it was before almost every
home had a computer, in 1994

Actually since MS introduced copy-protection in 2000 with MSO2KSP1, the
piracy rate stopped its steady downward trend.

The Business Software Alliance Global Software Piracy Rate:

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003*
49 46 43 40 38 36 37 40 39 36

* - 1st year using IDC methodology.

See the piracy rate had been declining since 1994 as more and more PCs
were sold to people for Home Use. And since MS first introduce PA the
piracy rate has been fluctuating up & down. For calculating the piracy
rate in 2003, the BSA changed its methodology, so that drop is a result
of the change. Mike Newton, campaigns relations manager for the BSA, at
the time of the release of that year's report said, "Right now we feel
that piracy rates are on the up."

PA isn't about PIRACY and never has been. It is about behavior
modification and getting you to accept the bogus rules of soul-less
corporate software copyright owners in the privacy of your home!

While the EULA is a perfectly acceptable commercial use license, it has
NEVER been proven to also be a legally enforceable private use licence.
And so all these rules, policies and copy protection is about anything
except FUDing the individual consumer into believeing that the corporate
elite words are the law, without actually having to prove it!

--
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"

T. Waters wrote:
> VWWall wrote:
>
>>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, the keyboard has nothing to do with it.
> The consensus within this group leans towards the power cord as the
> irreducible essence of a "computer." (;-)
>
>
I did not find anyone offering WinXP Pro x64 with just a power cord. I
have so many of them it would be hard keeping track which was the
original one allowed by the EULA. Maybe attach the COA to it?

--
Virg Wall

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

On Wed, 11 May 2005 01:25:13 GMT, Leythos <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
>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.