OEM License

[Howard Kaikow]

It appears that the Microsoft OEM System Builder License at
http://www.microsoft.com/oem/sblicense does not allow for building a system
for oneself.

Why would folkes believe otherwise?

The Limited License section states:

"If you comply with the terms of this license, Microsoft grants you a
limited license to distribute
the Software or Hardware."

However, the Definitions section states:

"b. "Distribution" and "distribute" mean the point in time when a Customer
System leaves your control."

So, you cannot to distribute to yourself, as that would mean you still have
control of the Computer System.

And, the Limited License secrtion also states:

"Except as granted in this license, you may not use, run, copy, modify,
display, distribute,
repackage or reassemble the Software, Hardware, OPK or any part of them."

So, you could not run or use the software.

Is there another license that allows one to build a computer fgor oneself
using the OEM software?

 

[Big_Al]

Howard Kaikow said this on 4/24/2009 2:59 PM:

It appears that the Microsoft OEM System Builder License at
http://www.microsoft.com/oem/sblicense does not allow for building a system
for oneself.

Why would folkes believe otherwise?

The Limited License section states:

"If you comply with the terms of this license, Microsoft grants you a
limited license to distribute
the Software or Hardware."

However, the Definitions section states:

"b. "Distribution" and "distribute" mean the point in time when a Customer
System leaves your control."

So, you cannot to distribute to yourself, as that would mean you still have
control of the Computer System.

And, the Limited License secrtion also states:

"Except as granted in this license, you may not use, run, copy, modify,
display, distribute,
repackage or reassemble the Software, Hardware, OPK or any part of them."

So, you could not run or use the software.

Is there another license that allows one to build a computer fgor oneself
using the OEM software?

Can you sell it to your wife? (just kidding, but really!).

 

[+BOB+ The Knob]

It appears that the Microsoft OEM System Builder License at
http://www.microsoft.com/oem/sblicense does not allow for building a
system
for oneself.

Why would folkes believe otherwise?

The Limited License section states:

"If you comply with the terms of this license, Microsoft grants you a
limited license to distribute
the Software or Hardware."

However, the Definitions section states:

"b. "Distribution" and "distribute" mean the point in time when a Customer
System leaves your control."

You dog wants a computer

So, you cannot to distribute to yourself, as that would mean you still
have
control of the Computer System.

And, the Limited License secrtion also states:

"Except as granted in this license, you may not use, run, copy, modify,
display, distribute,
repackage or reassemble the Software, Hardware, OPK or any part of them."

So, you could not run or use the software.

Is there another license that allows one to build a computer fgor oneself
using the OEM software?

On the other hand, what Microsoft doesn't kow, the better.

 

[Howard Kaikow]

Can you sell it to your wife? (just kidding, but really!).

Of course.
Just make sure that you are on good terms, lest she not let you use the
system.

Of course, that means that the license discriminates against unmarried
folkes.
Hmmm, perhaps the Supreme Court had better decide this?

 

[Howard Kaikow]

You dog wants a computer

What dog?

On the other hand, what Microsoft doesn't kow, the better.

Ethics?

 

[+BOB+ The Knob]

What dog?

Ethics?

It doesn't matter who you "give" your computer to. Just don't let Microsoft
know and it will be OK. No need to worry about the license.

 

[Alias]

It appears that the Microsoft OEM System Builder License at
http://www.microsoft.com/oem/sblicense does not allow for building a system
for oneself.

Why would folkes believe otherwise?

The Limited License section states:

"If you comply with the terms of this license, Microsoft grants you a
limited license to distribute
the Software or Hardware."

However, the Definitions section states:

"b. "Distribution" and "distribute" mean the point in time when a Customer
System leaves your control."

So, you cannot to distribute to yourself, as that would mean you still have
control of the Computer System.

And, the Limited License secrtion also states:

"Except as granted in this license, you may not use, run, copy, modify,
display, distribute,
repackage or reassemble the Software, Hardware, OPK or any part of them."

So, you could not run or use the software.

Is there another license that allows one to build a computer fgor oneself
using the OEM software?

Micro$lut's licensing scam is written by high priced lawyers to tell you
what you *can't* do with the software. If you're fed up, move up to a
real operating system like Ubuntu. It's free and doesn't have the
restrictions that a Windoze license has. You can copy it, give it away,
install it on as many computers as you like and it's virtually bullet
proof compared to Windoze when it comes to viruses and malware.

Check it out at http://www.ubuntu.com/

Alias

 

[Corka]

Of course.
Just make sure that you are on good terms, lest she not let you use the
system.

Of course, that means that the license discriminates against unmarried
folkes.
Hmmm, perhaps the Supreme Court had better decide this?

You may have a better chance in the Supreme Court, the Family Court will
give it to her ;-D).

- Corka

 

[Howard Kaikow]

Micro$lut's licensing scam is written by high priced lawyers to tell you
what you *can't* do with the software. If you're fed up, move up to a
real operating system like Ubuntu. It's free and doesn't have the
restrictions that a Windoze license has. You can copy it, give it away,
install it on as many computers as you like and it's virtually bullet
proof compared to Windoze when it comes to viruses and malware.

Check it out at http://www.ubuntu.com/

Yes, ubuntu is a dood OS, and I have it.

But last I checked, Linux apps were inadequate.
For example, as of about 2 years ago:

1. I could not find a PDF writing program that would allow me to edit IRS
tax forms and save the edited file.
2. If you are a Windows Office user, you may find that Open Office is
inadequate:
a. Third party apps that hook into Windows Office apps may very well not
hook into Open Office apps.
b. The cost of converting VBA code will likely be high.
c. Calc could not properly import the name space used in Excel workbooks
that used the same name for cells on different worksheets. This would break
a lot of Excel formulas and code. I found this in Open Office 2.3, but I
believe that problem still exists in Open Office 3. If one qualifies, the
Office Home and Student edition, or whatever it is called these daze, is
rather inexpensive.

In any case, I'm not about to spend time debating the merits of L*ix. It's a
fone OS, but the real world requires better apps.

Some time next year, I'll give Linux another look.

 

[Howard Kaikow]

It doesn't matter who you "give" your computer to. Just don't let Microsoft
know and it will be OK. No need to worry about the license.

Ethics?

It continues to amaze me that folkes who would never consider stealing a
candy bar, somehow feel they have the right to steal software.

 

[Alias]

Yes, ubuntu is a dood OS, and I have it.

But last I checked, Linux apps were inadequate.
For example, as of about 2 years ago:

1. I could not find a PDF writing program that would allow me to edit IRS
tax forms and save the edited file.
2. If you are a Windows Office user, you may find that Open Office is
inadequate:
a. Third party apps that hook into Windows Office apps may very well not
hook into Open Office apps.
b. The cost of converting VBA code will likely be high.
c. Calc could not properly import the name space used in Excel workbooks
that used the same name for cells on different worksheets. This would break
a lot of Excel formulas and code. I found this in Open Office 2.3, but I
believe that problem still exists in Open Office 3. If one qualifies, the
Office Home and Student edition, or whatever it is called these daze, is
rather inexpensive.

In any case, I'm not about to spend time debating the merits of L*ix. It's a
fone OS, but the real world requires better apps.

Some time next year, I'll give Linux another look.

Take the new one for a spin. There have been a lot of improvements over
the last two years. The new version, for example, boots in 10 to 25
*seconds*. Ubuntu is now running Open Office 3 which is much more
Micro$lut Office friendly. GIMP has improved so much that I have a
friend who used to use PhotoShop to make a living. Now he is using GIMP
even though he has PhotoShop in WINE.

Alias

 

[Alias]

Ethics?

It continues to amaze me that folkes who would never consider stealing a
candy bar, somehow feel they have the right to steal software.

Um, violating an EULA is *not* stealing. Stealing is a criminal, not
civil, offense. Micro$lut has yet to grow the balls to take anyone to
court for violating their EULA so what does that tell you about the
legality of their scam ridden EULA (you can't agree to or not agree to
the EULA until it's too late to get your money back)?

Alias

 

[Howard Kaikow]

Um, violating an EULA is *not* stealing. Stealing is a criminal, not
civil, offense. Micro$lut has yet to grow the balls to take anyone to
court for violating their EULA so what does that tell you about the
legality of their scam ridden EULA (you can't agree to or not agree to
the EULA until it's too late to get your money back)?

Not so, the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) requires that licenses be made
available in advance of purchase.
MSFT has the licenses at their web site.
It's up to you to check.

And it is my understanding that, e.g., with OEM Windows XP, there is a label
on the case holding the media that tells you from where you can download
the license.

Violating a license is an (un)civil offense.

 

[Howard Kaikow]

Take the new one for a spin. There have been a lot of improvements over
the last two years. The new version, for example, boots in 10 to 25
*seconds*. Ubuntu is now running Open Office 3 which is much more
Micro$lut Office friendly. GIMP has improved so much that I have a
friend who used to use PhotoShop to make a living. Now he is using GIMP
even though he has PhotoShop in WINE.

You are talking about the OS, I'm talking about that apps in the OS.
Calc 3 still had the problems I described in my earlier post.
The cost of migrating from Windows Office to Open Office is non-trivial, at
least for the reasons I stated in my earlier post.

 

[Alias]

Not so, the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) requires that licenses be made
available in advance of purchase.

Only applicable in the States. I don't live in the States.

MSFT has the licenses at their web site.
It's up to you to check.

No, it's up to them to put it on the outside of the package. There is no
reason a customer should have to go on the web to read a license before
going to a brick and mortar store to buy something. They don't put it on
the outside of the package so they can have their cake and eat it too.

And it is my understanding that, e.g., with OEM Windows XP, there is a label
on the case holding the media that tells you from where you can download
the license.

Not here.

Violating a license is an (un)civil offense.

Right, so it isn't, as you previously stated, stealing.

Alias

 

[Alias]

You are talking about the OS, I'm talking about that apps in the OS.

Um, both GIMP and Open Office 3 are apps.

Calc 3 still had the problems I described in my earlier post.
The cost of migrating from Windows Office to Open Office is non-trivial, at
least for the reasons I stated in my earlier post.

So keep trying to figure out the license terms and stick with Windoze.

Alias