End-user License for Vista

[Tinkerer]

Exactly...lol I can't seem to leave mine alone.

--

Cheers,
Tinkerer

and yes..I am a tinkler and quite often reinstall things etc

As far as I know, we are all "Tinklers", since we all take a piss from
time to time. However, a few of us are "tinkers", in that we "tinker"
with our machines all the time.


Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread and newsgroup.
---------------------------------------------------------

 

[Alan]

It is the new Vista EULA!
Alan

Is that the Vista RETAIL EULA, or the OEM EULA? It makes sense for
the OEM EULA, which has ALWAYS allowed the transfer of the license to
only ONE other PERSON, as long as the original machine was transferred
along with the license.

But it certainly makes no sense for a RETAIL license, and if it is
true, is definitely an encroachment on our FAIR USE rights under
almost ANY national legal code.

I doubt this clause will stand long in a court of law.


Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread and newsgroup.
---------------------------------------------------------

 

[Dave Balcom]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:05:01 -0700, Donald L McDaniel

}But it certainly makes no sense for a RETAIL license, and if it is
}true, is definitely an encroachment on our FAIR USE rights under
}almost ANY national legal code.
}
}I doubt this clause will stand long in a court of law.

I don't think standing in a court of law is the issue. What happens when
you try and activate on the 3rd computer upgrade (which over several
years is possible) and Vista says you need a new license?

I was really enthusiastic about Vista until I started reading this EULA
BS... It looks like MS is trying to fleece their retail users...

 

[Alias~-]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:05:01 -0700, Donald L McDaniel

}But it certainly makes no sense for a RETAIL license, and if it is
}true, is definitely an encroachment on our FAIR USE rights under
}almost ANY national legal code.
}
}I doubt this clause will stand long in a court of law.

I don't think standing in a court of law is the issue. What happens when
you try and activate on the 3rd computer upgrade (which over several
years is possible) and Vista says you need a new license?

I was really enthusiastic about Vista until I started reading this EULA
BS... It looks like MS is trying to fleece their retail users...

The best way to get the message out to MS is to not buy Vista and say
Hasta La Vista, Baby!

Alias

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

No you are right, I was having a non-blonde moment.
Weirdest thing is, I was having the same arguement months ago with someone
in the XP group and I stated then it was not in the EULA so I am not sure
what my brain was doing, sorry

What you were doing is called "falling under the influence of peer
pressure". Don't worry, this is not unique with you. We all do it
from time to time.

All the Microsoft evangelists said it was there, so you naturally
began to believe them, even when you yourself had read the OEM EULA
and knew it wasn't there.

The fact is, its NOT in the XP OEM EULA, except in the imaginations of
"bad" jail-house lawyers for Microsoft. There sure seems to be quite
a few of them in the Microsoft newsgroups.

If you want to read the OEM EULA for Windows XP (in the event that
your version of XP IS an OEM version), just
1) Start/Run/Winver.
2) Click on the blue hyperlink labeled "End User License Agreement".

 

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

Please read the truth regarding Vista's licensing & EULA:
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp


--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User

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

:

| I have just seen the new License terms for the Vista versions on the MS
| website and am concerned about new restrictions about using the license on a
| new machine. It seems you are only allowed to transfer vista once to a new
| machine. I have checked with Microsoft and apparently installing a new
| motherboard/ processor is as far as they are concerned a new machine!
| This is going to hit those of us who home build our machines and upgrade
| regularly very hard. I must admit I am thinking whether the change to Vista
| is worthwhile. This is a new restriction which does not appear in the XP
| EULA.
| Alan

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

Please read the truth regarding Vista's licensing & EULA:
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp

No thank you sir, I will read the Vista OEM license agreement when and
if I purchase Vista OEM. By the way, Mr. Thurrott posts neither the
XP OEM license agreement, OR the Vista OEM license agreement. HE only
misrepresents the OEM License as the Retail license.

If I instead decide to spend a small fortune for a Retail copy of
Vista Ultimate, I will read the OFFICIAL license agreement at that
time, not some pundits lies.

Paul Thurrott is nothing but a propogandist for Microsoft, and
actually MISLED those who read and believed his "truth" about
XP's/Vista's licensing terms.

But he did NOT mislead me, since I have read both the official XP
Retail license agreement and the official XP OEM license agreement.
They are NOT substantially the same, as Mr. Thurrott implies. The
retail license is MUCH more generous, seeing as how it is MUCH more
expensive, which is certainly reasonable to me.

 

[David Wilkinson]

Please read the truth regarding Vista's licensing & EULA:
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp

I see nothing in this article that indicates the author understands the
difference between an OEM and Retail license (or that he even knows
these concepts exist).

Therefore anything he says is meaningless.

The problem is the change in the RETAIL Vista license (relative tp XP),
limiting transfer to only one machine.

David Wilkinson

 

[John Barnes]

There is also no evidence that OEM will be available in the same manner as
previous versions. Microsoft has changed the wording of the license to
eliminate the 'hole' that allowed the sale of OEM versions with an
inconsequential piece of hardware.

 

[Barry Watzman]

Microsoft may not enforce the letter of the EULA text; they don't with
XP. Currently, the product activation database resets after 120 days.
It may be that it will continue to do that with Vista, the letter of the
EULA terms not withstanding. Thus, while the EULA may only let you move
the software once, it's quite possible that the rule enforced by PA
will, in fact, let you move it once every 120 days.

No arugment, however, that I'd prefer that the EULA stay the same as it
currently is in XP.

 

[David Wilkinson]

There is also no evidence that OEM will be available in the same manner as
previous versions. Microsoft has changed the wording of the license to
eliminate the 'hole' that allowed the sale of OEM versions with an
inconsequential piece of hardware.

John:

I must say that I always thought that this use of the OEM license was a
technical (if not literal) violation fo the license. That is why I have
started buying full retail licenses, and buying computers without an OS
installed. And I am very ticked off that if I do with this Vista I will
not be able to transfer the license in any way I choose.

But are you saying there is no OEM-retail distinction in Vista? I did
not realize that.

David Wilkinson

 

[Alias~-]

There is also no evidence that OEM will be available in the same manner as
previous versions. Microsoft has changed the wording of the license to
eliminate the 'hole' that allowed the sale of OEM versions with an
inconsequential piece of hardware.

I haven't seen any evidence that a generic (DSP) OEM version will even
be available for people who build their own computers or for small mom
and pop operations who also build their computers.

Do you have an URL for the EULA for a Vista generic OEM version or are
you just guessing?

Alias

 

[John Barnes]

Not what I am saying. Only that OEM on Microsoft has been folded under the
System Builder section and the system builder license wording has been
changed. I have not heard anything about OEM as we knew it being available
or not.

 

[John Barnes]

See respose above. http://www.microsoft.com/oem/default.mspx
http://oem.microsoft.com/downloads/Public/sblicense/English_SB_License.pdf

 

[Alias~-]

See respose above. http://www.microsoft.com/oem/default.mspx
http://oem.microsoft.com/downloads/Public/sblicense/English_SB_License.pdf

I was not talking about system builder licenses but end users buying a
generic OEM.

Alias

 

[John Barnes]

Can you please READ. Note the name of the site /oem/ . OEM on the
Microsoft is only available NOW within the Systme Builder section. I also
said I have no idea if they will or will not end up offering a 'generic OEM'
version. Also, there are blogs on Microsoft sites that hint that
Microsoft's changed license does not support the old process of selling the
OEM version with inconsequential hardware.

 

[Alias~-]

Can you please READ.

Being patronizing, are we?

Note the name of the site /oem/ . OEM on the
Microsoft is only available NOW within the Systme Builder section.

You don't know that for sure.

I also
said I have no idea if they will or will not end up offering a 'generic OEM'
version. Also, there are blogs on Microsoft sites that hint that
Microsoft's changed license does not support the old process of selling the
OEM version with inconsequential hardware.

Which will, if true, as you are only guessing, get rid of all the
hobbyists and put the small shops out of business. How nice, the big
multinationals win again. I can only hope that the EU will make it like
XP where you can buy generic OEMs without any hardware at all.

Alias

 

[Kerry Brown]

Can you please READ. Note the name of the site /oem/ . OEM on the
Microsoft is only available NOW within the Systme Builder section. I
also said I have no idea if they will or will not end up offering a
'generic OEM' version. Also, there are blogs on Microsoft sites that
hint that Microsoft's changed license does not support the old
process of selling the OEM version with inconsequential hardware.

The "inconseqential hardware" restriction was removed over a year ago. OEM
XP can only be sold in unopened OEM packs to other system builders. Note
there is a one pack SKU and there is no definition of a system builder other
than they have to say they are a system builder. All unopened OEM packs have
the System Builder License on them so anyone receiving current OEM product
should be aware of the System Builder License. If it doesn't then whomever
is selling the product has very old stock or they are breaking the System
Builder License.

 

[John Barnes]

You don't know that for sure.

Search the Microsoft.com site or do a Google search. Let me know of any OEM
other than that in the System Builder area, which requires a sign-up

 

[David Wilkinson]

Please read the truth regarding Vista's licensing & EULA:
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp

For a rebuttal to this article, see

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=158

David Wilkinson