This is the End . . . .

[Kerry Brown]

ROFL! One thread in thousands changes your mind. I must say I'm a
bit disappointed in you, that you can so blow with the MicroWind. What
RA told you is true.

Reset the group, or create a new instance of the group in your
newsreader, and see for yourself.

I was just trolling myself to get you to respond back. It's apalling what
they are censoring. I have agreed with a few of your past posts being
censored as they attacked people directly. The current censorship has no
basis other than you don't like Microsoft.

I gave a link to the SBL right from MS's site. It mentions nothing
about this changing the Mobo being a new computer requiring a new
license. MS cannot legally hold anyone to this Mobo nonsense since NO
ONE agreed to it. Not System Builders, not End Users, not ANYONE!

I never said anything about the legality. Just some info about how Microsoft
is trying to push this. Here is the text from a sticker on a very current
copy OEM XP Home.

"This OEM software may not be delivered unless accompanied by the required
hardware under the Microsoft OEM System Builder License located at
http://www.microsoft.com/oem/sblicense/ . End-user support is the
responsibilty of the installer of this software"

The link leads to a site where you can download various language copies of
the oem license including the one you posted. I agree that there is no
public mention anywhere of the tied to a motherboard rule. Microsoft is
making this rule very clear to system builders then dropping the ball with
the end user. So far I have never been refused activation when changing a
motherboard even when I have told them I changed the motherboard. The vast
majority have activated over the Internet.

Kerry

 

[nubian]

I never lie, I have nothing to gain by telling lies.

Oh, so it's just your delusions then.

 

[Guest]

I was just trolling myself to get you to respond back. It's apalling
what they are censoring. I have agreed with a few of your past
posts being censored as they attacked people directly. The current
censorship has no basis other than you don't like Microsoft.

ROFL! Well you trolled me! So much for Leythos' Troll God that he was
trolled himself!

I never said anything about the legality. Just some info about how
Microsoft is trying to push this. Here is the text from a sticker on
a very current copy OEM XP Home.

"This OEM software may not be delivered unless accompanied by
the required hardware under the Microsoft OEM System Builder
License located at http://www.microsoft.com/oem/sblicense/ .
End-user support is the responsibilty of the installer of this
software"

The link leads to a site where you can download various language
copies of the oem license including the one you posted. I agree
that there is no public mention anywhere of the tied to a
motherboard rule. Microsoft is making this rule very clear to
system builders then dropping the ball with the end user. So far I
have never been refused activation when changing a motherboard
even when I have told them I changed the motherboard. The vast
majority have activated over the Internet.

And that's the difference between businessmen like yourself, and those like
Leythos. You can see reality between the MicroBS, and he uses the MicroBS to
sell licenses.

 

[nubian]

Fact, no person I know feels disrespected by activation.

So, since this is about how YOU feel, you can go right on feeling
disrespected. The entire group of people I know all over the USA and
several countries that talk about Microsoft products don't agree with
your position or feelings.

So, that makes it a personal issue to you.

You can't change the fact that MOST people don't feel abused, accused,
disrespected, etc... Most people don't have problems with Activation or
WGA.

Now, come back with some other rant, but you can't show me where the
Majority of purchasers feel abused.

Well, I am one of the many who agree with Alias. There are more out
there than you think, Leythos.

 

[Winux P]

: Leythos wrote:
: >
: > > >> Fact: MS made billions on unprotected software.
: > > >
: > > > Yep, so, doesn't change anything if they want to protect it.
: > >
: > > No need if they can make billions without it and show some respect for
: > > their paying customers.
: >
: > Fact, no person I know feels disrespected by activation.
:
: I dont care who it is. MS or the 14 year old geek trying to "protect"
: his work.
:
: The 14 year old and the "multi-national" have the same rights to get
: paid for their investments.
:
:
: --
: http://www.bootdisk.com/
:

It's a cruel but beautiful world Plato....

I think in all reality MS has alot more rights that a 14 year old.

- Winux P

 

[Frank]

Google the subject. Lotus tried a WPA/WGA type of scheme and it cost
them dearly.

 

[Frank]

Fact, no person I know feels disrespected by activation.

Try N High and fivth area. You will get plenty of complaints.

 

[Leythos]

And that's the difference between businessmen like yourself, and those like
Leythos. You can see reality between the MicroBS, and he uses the MicroBS to
sell licenses.

And I've not, as I said earlier in this thread, claimed it is tied to
the mother board since the new licensing rules were presented months
ago. How many times will I have to state this for you to remember it.

Oh, and to correct someone else - they said that they talked to a MVP
about what would happen if a motherboard failed and was unable to be
replaced under warranty - without additional qualifications, nothing, it
could be replaced without issue. It's when it's replaced without fault
that caused the problems in the OLD licensing structure.

 

[Leythos]

Well, I am one of the many who agree with Alias. There are more out
there than you think, Leythos.

I'm sure that there are many people with PA problems, I've never denied
that, but I think, based on my own experience and conversations with OEM
suppliers, that it's a very small percentage.

And you're entitled to believe what you want, I support your choice to
believe the opposite of what I see as fact.

 

[dannysdailys]

kurttrailwrote
Of the OEM Motherboard is the Computer BULLSH*T

The System Builders License that comes with XP mentions th motherboard
ONLY once

4. SOFTWARE DISTRIBUTION
4.1 We grant you a nonexclusive right to distribute an individual
software license only with a fully assembled computer system. "fully
assembled computer system" means a computer system consistin of at
least a central processing unit, a motherboard, a hard drive, power
supply, and a case

http://oem.microsoft.com/downloads/public/sblicense/English_SB_License.pd

Read the System Builder License yourself, and you'll will see tha NO
SYSTEM BUILDER, END USER, or FAIRY GOD-MOTHER'S LICENSE SAY ANYTHING
ABOUT CHANGING THE MOTHERBOARD BEING CONSIDER AS A DIFFEREN COMPUTER

ANYONE THAT TELLS YOU ANYTHING DIFFERENT IS JUST FULL OF SH*T

I'm glad I could finally provide ya'll with the definitive answer o

this subject, and we won't need to waste the groups time on thi Mobo is
the Computer Nonsense ever again

--
Peace
Kur
Self-anointed Moderato
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhe
http://microscum.com/mscommunity/index.php?showtopic=
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of a Oxymoron
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei

I don't understand your problem; I've changed my XP license to tw
different mobo's. I never had to call them. I did for a version o
Office however, but only once

OEM is a whole different ballgame. Yes, it seems OEM's are all abou
throw away and that includes your copy of Windows! This is nothin
new..

 

[Kerry Brown]

And I've not, as I said earlier in this thread, claimed it is tied to
the mother board since the new licensing rules were presented months
ago. How many times will I have to state this for you to remember it.

Oh, and to correct someone else - they said that they talked to a MVP
about what would happen if a motherboard failed and was unable to be
replaced under warranty - without additional qualifications, nothing,
it could be replaced without issue. It's when it's replaced without
fault that caused the problems in the OLD licensing structure.

I was told in no uncertain terms that if a motherboard failed and it was not
under warranty then the end user would need a new license for XP. The
existing license could not be transfered. The only reason I mentioned that
it was an MVP is because it was obvious he had been briefed by Microsoft on
this very topic and was told to say this. A Microsoft employee immediately
confirmed his statement. It is common for Microsoft to bring in MVP's to run
hands on labs. Many MVPs are also Microsoft partners and experts in their
fields. This lab was about SBS 2003 and the new SBS partner certification
and also about using the OPK and Windows PE. It is unusual for them to go
off topic in the middle of a lab to discuss OEM licensing. It was very
obvious the MVP was uncomfortable with this as was the audience. The agenda
was set by Microsoft. The majority of the audience were OEM partners.
Microsoft was obviously making a point.

Kerry

 

[Leythos]

I was told in no uncertain terms that if a motherboard failed and it was not
under warranty then the end user would need a new license for XP. The
existing license could not be transfered. The only reason I mentioned that
it was an MVP is because it was obvious he had been briefed by Microsoft on
this very topic and was told to say this. A Microsoft employee immediately
confirmed his statement. It is common for Microsoft to bring in MVP's to run
hands on labs. Many MVPs are also Microsoft partners and experts in their
fields. This lab was about SBS 2003 and the new SBS partner certification
and also about using the OPK and Windows PE. It is unusual for them to go
off topic in the middle of a lab to discuss OEM licensing. It was very
obvious the MVP was uncomfortable with this as was the audience. The agenda
was set by Microsoft. The majority of the audience were OEM partners.
Microsoft was obviously making a point.

I've personally spoken with several MS licensing people about this and
other issues concerning licensing. Under the OEM agreement, the OEM
decides when a replacement doesn't qualify. The systems builders site
USE TO SAY, that the board can be replaced for repair without
invalidating the license, it can not be "replaced as an upgrade" without
invalidating the license.

The local regional office does not agree with the statements made by the
individuals you talked with, and neither did the rep they had in from
Redmond to talk with us about licensing.

Keep in mind, I got 6 different answers from 6 different people until I
was able to get the regional office to bring in a qualified rep.

 

[Kurt Kirsch]

I've personally spoken with several MS licensing people about this and
other issues concerning licensing. Under the OEM agreement, the OEM
decides when a replacement doesn't qualify. The systems builders site
USE TO SAY, that the board can be replaced for repair without
invalidating the license, it can not be "replaced as an upgrade" without
invalidating the license.

The local regional office does not agree with the statements made by the
individuals you talked with, and neither did the rep they had in from
Redmond to talk with us about licensing.

Keep in mind, I got 6 different answers from 6 different people until I
was able to get the regional office to bring in a qualified rep.

And since MS is NOT the final legal arbiter of what ANY of its
licenses means, you still don't know if you have a correct answer.

Just like SCO is not the final legal arbiter of the UNIX license, and
must sue IBM to get a court to agree with them. So must MS do the
same with their licensing CLAIMS!

The ONLY "'qualified rep" would be a judge, especially over the part
of turning a PRIVATE NON-COMMERCIAL INDIVIDUAL INTO A COMMERCIAL
ENTITY THRU A SHRINK-WRAP LICENSE.

 

[Kurt Kirsch]

I've personally spoken with several MS licensing people about this and
other issues concerning licensing. Under the OEM agreement, the OEM
decides when a replacement doesn't qualify. The systems builders site
USE TO SAY, that the board can be replaced for repair without
invalidating the license, it can not be "replaced as an upgrade" without
invalidating the license.

The local regional office does not agree with the statements made by the
individuals you talked with, and neither did the rep they had in from
Redmond to talk with us about licensing.

Keep in mind, I got 6 different answers from 6 different people until I
was able to get the regional office to bring in a qualified rep.

http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/msg/92840bbc2c3fdbb6?hl=en&

 

[Leythos]

And since MS is NOT the final legal arbiter of what ANY of its
licenses means, you still don't know if you have a correct answer.

Just like SCO is not the final legal arbiter of the UNIX license, and
must sue IBM to get a court to agree with them. So must MS do the
same with their licensing CLAIMS!

The ONLY "'qualified rep" would be a judge, especially over the part
of turning a PRIVATE NON-COMMERCIAL INDIVIDUAL INTO A COMMERCIAL
ENTITY THRU A SHRINK-WRAP LICENSE.

So, we're back to the same old mantra - MS presents a License Agreement
for its product that you choose to use of free will. You have a choice
to follow the license agreement or not, of your own free will. If at
some point you are found in violation of the agreement, you may suffer
for violating it.

Seems simple, follow licensing agreement and you will not no problems.
Decided to violate the agreement and you could end up with all sorts of
problems.

 

[Leythos]

http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/msg/92840bbc2c3fdbb6?hl=en&

I got your post on the Usenet server I use, google was unnecessary.

 

[kurttrail]

So, we're back to the same old mantra - MS presents a License
Agreement for its product that you choose to use of free will.

It's not a mantra. It is how contract law works. Or do you think
that IBM should do whatever SCO wants, just because SCO claims its in
the UNIX License?

You
have a choice to follow the license agreement or not, of your own
free will.

And you have the legal choice under contract law to ignore any
contract term that you feel is unconscionable, like the term of
turning a private non-commercial individual into a commercial entity
of a System Builder.

If at some point you are found in violation of the
agreement, you may suffer for violating it.

True. But under contract law, it would be up to the Licensor to sue
the Licensee, and then prove it to a judge. Something MS has NEVER
done when it comes to private non-commercial usage term in ANY of its
license. Not only has MS never done it, also all of the colluding
members of the BSA have NEVER done it!

Seems simple, follow licensing agreement and you will not no problems.

According to whose interpretation? Some corporate criminal of a
corporation, or your own?

Personally I trust my own opinion a hell of a lot more than the
patent-thief, and predatory monopolist, Microsoft!

Decided to violate the agreement and you could end up with all sorts
of problems.

FUD! I have challenged MS to sue me plenty of times. And I'm still
waiting, but I'm not gonna hold my breath over it. MS is too
chickensh*t to go after any private non-commercial individual. Why?
Because they KNOW that more the likely they'd lose.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity/index.php?showtopic=3
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[kurttrail]

I got your post on the Usenet server I use, google was unnecessary.

I'm not just posting for your sake. But MS pulled the google link
too.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity/index.php?showtopic=3
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Leythos]

FUD! I have challenged MS to sue me plenty of times. And I'm still
waiting, but I'm not gonna hold my breath over it. MS is too
chickensh*t to go after any private non-commercial individual. Why?
Because they KNOW that more the likely they'd lose.

It still doesn't change the FACT that you don't know how it will come
out. Since you can't assure anyone that there is a 100% guarantee that
MS would lose, all you can do it say you FEEL/have an OPINION.

It would be irresponsible for any ethical consultant to put their
clients in a position like you rant about. So, it would also be
irresponsible for me to suggest the same to a non-corporate user.

 

[Leythos]

I'm not just posting for your sake. But MS pulled the google link
too.

Are you saying that MS pulled a post that was ON the google servers?

If this is true, then it's time to go after the Usenet Moderator for
issuing cancel messages to other servers - as nothing you've done, at
any time, warrants a blanket cancel action on any servers outside of
MS's own servers.